[[If you accept that dogs are a KIND (which I think you do), and that the world is +- 6000 years old (which I think you do).]]
The bible isn’t specific about how old the earth is, but there are soem clues about it being between 6000 to 10000 or so years old- I’ll not take a stand on how many thousand years it is, but will point out the clues and leave it to others to decide. And yes, a Dog is a KIND
[[then you accept that evolution happens hundreds of times faster than science says it does.
You can’t have it both ways. If wolves, dogs, foxes and coyotes can all come from a single dog KIND in 6000 years then there is no problem at all with ALL life coming from a common ancestor in 3,500,000,000 years.]]
Well yes there is, The Dog Kind remains a Dog Kind, no matter the amou8nt of microevolution taking place, either naturally or artificially- We know adaption happens very quickly, however Adaption relies on species specific gene dominence which is encoded into genes and can be altered quickly through mutations within the information parameters which allow for alterations within these “biological limits” (there, that is the word for the ‘caps’ I’ve been using) The Domestic Dog went through specialized artificial adaption/gene manipulation in a very directed manner controlled by man and our understanding of character traits, so this really can’t be used as an argument for ‘quick macroevolution’ for both that reason, and the reason that it is microevolution, not macro- which is a biological impossibility.
[[Second, the random nature of mutations is not a road block at all as long as there are a sufficient number of them.]]
The mathematics for KIND TRansforming mutations ( if it were even possible) refute your statement, and is a roadblock- the mathematics scientists at the scientific symposium in chicago higjlighted this issue. Some small species specific microevolutionary changes caused by mutations in species are simple and not very complicated, and work within the parameters of biological limitations-
[[Just to note, you are again ignoring natural selection. Random mutation is the least important part of evolution, it is natural selection that does the shaping. As long as you continue to ignore it, you are arguing against strawman.]]
I’m not ignoring that at all- the fact is that ‘benifical mutations’ take a very long time- too long for enough to accumulate before the negative wipe the species out altogether If we’re arguing macroevolution (you’re discussing two seperate issues at once) I fully realize natural selection is very important- however, the science behind the randomness and accumulation of ‘benificial mutations’ shows that this is VERY important concideration when arguing for macroevolution and suggesting that mutations can lead to major organ/complex system changes in species that move htem to another KIND (and by the way, selective breeding cuases degredation from the original- not improvement- the wolf is still the ultimate predator- the coyote and domestic dogs are degredations)
[[Or maybe there is no eternal damnation in the first place.]]
Quite hte gamble to take the chance that there might not be- don’t you think?
[[No we aren’t, because your traffic cop and caps are figments of your imagination that were arbitrarily created to enforce a “law” that you made up.]]
I made up biological limits? Wow- the cop is illustrative and not a literal seperate figure as I explained in another post to you. Ridicule the annalogy if you like, but hte premise is solid.
[[No I really don’t and neither do you or you would be able to define it. Example...
Species: A species consists of individual organisms that are very similar in appearance, anatomy, physiology, and genetics due to having relatively recent common ancestors.]]
Mmm yes I do, and so do you, and you’re dancing here- Sorry- I don’t dance. KINDS are explained in detail in the link I gave, and the evidence in nature and in biology and also in the fossil records supports KINDS just find
[[No, I don’t know that either, care to give an example of an abominable KIND?]]
I gave you several already in previous posts- Fruit flies with legs where their eyes are as result of allowing simulated millions of years of mutations resulted in what? Yes, another fruitfly- the same KIND- the fruit flies remained fruitflies- We found veryclear evidence that mutations ONLY work on the instructions available to them and can’t create new organs not specific to the species KIND
[[Things that exists can be defined. If you can’t define it either does not exist or you don’t understand what you are talking about]]
What doesn’t exist? I’m stating that there are problems but are so far down the in regards to classifying certain KINDS that they do absolutely nothing to undermine the idea of KINDS at all- the problems involve actual species- and quite frankly, the Phylogenic system also has such problems categorizing certain species
[[I do note that you provided a link. Are you saying that when you say KIND you mean baramin as defined at that link?]]
No Baramin is the classification of KINDS- it’s not KINDS itself. I’m leaving for awhile- will be back later tonight.
Cottshop, you don't even know your own creationist talking points!
Baraminology means study or taxonomy of the created kinds. See Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and appears on the christiananswers.net website.
This article notes that the word "baramin" was conceived by Frank L. Marsh and first published in 1941; it is derived from the Hebrew verb bara, create and min, kind.
And what is a "kind?" I am surprised you don't know. You have been asked many times just on this thread. “Kinds” are, as Frair writes in the above cited article, “categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week.”
And how do you know what is in each kind? Easy! We are told that scripture has priority over all other considerations.
We are also told that:
Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) “every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. SourceIn other words, "kinds" is a purely religious term with no relation to science.