Replies

I haven't heard creationists totally deny speciation. But what I would argue is that the examples you are showing are micro evolution and not macro. You see, we share 53% of our DNA with a cabbage, but that doesn't mean that we had a common ancestor. (I know some cabbage-heads, but don't think a cabbage was their ancestor). It means we have a common designer who has set certain perimeters within all of creation which sustain life. I'll go back to my pie analogy. I can bake a pie, I can stick it in the sun, I can let it rot until it is no longer edible and stuff grows on top of it, but it is still a pie (a much fuzzier one but still by nature a pie). It will never turn into a cake, even though it has many of the same ingredients and may indeed be 95% similar in some of its ingredients. It is still a pie. We share 40 something percent of our DNA with Bananas, but we aren't related to them. We share 70% of our DNA with yeast, but are we all going to go volunteer to be Betty Crocker's next big baking experiment. The point is, just because there is a lot of similarity between our DNA and a chimps, does not mean that we share the same ancestors. And just as time plus a pie will not equal a cake, time plus similar genes has never been proven to produce the kind of species transformation which Darwinism has promised.

I haven't heard creationists totally deny speciation. But what I would argue is that the examples you are showing are micro evolution and not macro.

Speciation is what you're going to see in a human lifetime. (But, as I told you, speciation is the irreversible event.)

Once again, Tempo and Mode of Speciation. You need this material. As long as you only know the AiG version of what evolution is, your arguments will be risible. Here's the part you're having trouble with right now:

You see, we share 53% of our DNA with a cabbage, but that doesn't mean that we had a common ancestor ... The point is, just because there is a lot of similarity between our DNA and a chimps, does not mean that we share the same ancestors.

Common ancestry simply makes far more sense than "common designer." Why fill the ocean with fish, but then make whales from mammal parts? Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?

Why use something homologous to insectivore tree-dweller hands to make bat wings, but something like dinosaur claws to make bird wings, and just one incredibly stretched-out reptilian pinkie to support the pterodactyl wing? The supposed answer: you can't question the designer. (That's an answer!!??)

If something looks like design, it's proof of design. If it doesn't look like design, you're not allowed to notice or question. Can this be right?

The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.
The Quixotic Message.