Question for the theist

[John V]

such as? most creationist models deny evolution completely

Hardly. It's a common misunderstanding that creationists all think that each species was a unique creation. The general view is that the first creatures were created with built-in variability which allowed for a certain amount of evolution. For instance, there may have been one animal that developed into deer, antelope, gazelles, or whatever. Each species has less genetic information than the original - that's the main difference. Creationists accept that loss of genetic information can cause morphological change and even speciation.

[xr34p3rx]

such as? most creationist models deny evolution completely

Hardly. It's a common misunderstanding that creationists all think that each species was a unique creation. The general view is that the first creatures were created with built-in variability which allowed for a certain amount of evolution. For instance, there may have been one animal that developed into deer, antelope, gazelles, or whatever. Each species has less genetic information than the original - that's the main difference. Creationists accept that loss of genetic information can cause morphological change and even speciation.

So where is the evidence that says there was an original deer, giraffe, cow, etc... where is that evidence when the evidence of real scientific evolution points to ONE origin of life?

[FreeTony]

Many creationsts believe in mega fast evolution that allowed the variety of life we see now from those animal "kinds" that were on the Ark.

[xr34p3rx]

Many creationsts believe in mega fast evolution that allowed the variety of life we see now from those animal "kinds" that were on the Ark.

but scientific evidence shows that its the complete opposite. i dont care what the person says, its how they can prove it.

[John V]

but scientific evidence shows that its the complete opposite. i dont care what the person says, its how they can prove it.

You don't seem to know much more about the mainstream than you do about creationism. It's not as clear as youtube would have you believe. Genetic analyses trying to get back to a universal common ancestor have been conflicting, leading some to propose that there was very significant horizontal gene transfer among the first living things.

[Mister Agenda]

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

There is only one race the human race. The differences in shapes, sizes, skin color, etc. that people often regard to race are a result of genetic variation within the human species.

Genetic variations within a species are what races are.

race2 /reɪs/ Show Spelled [reys] Show IPA
noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology .
a. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

Just because the word is problematic doesn't make it meaningless. In science, the term 'race' also applies to regional variations of other species besides humans.

[xr34p3rx]

but scientific evidence shows that its the complete opposite. i dont care what the person says, its how they can prove it.

You don't seem to know much more about the mainstream than you do about creationism. It's not as clear as youtube would have you believe. Genetic analyses trying to get back to a universal common ancestor have been conflicting, leading some to propose that there was very significant horizontal gene transfer among the first living things.

it seems like you dont seem to understand evolution very well. To me, creationists say the same things, and after watching what people like ken ham have to say, its over my head stupid. They dont use real science, they dont test anything they claim, how are they reliable????

[MicahArmstrong]

According to the Bible, at the tower of Babel, Jehovah scattered folks all across the land and gave them different tongues to confuse them so they couldn't talk to each other. Sounds like a pretty loving guy, huh? In it's essence, for those who believe in an extraterrestrial connection though, different aliens mated with the humans to create sub sects which were slightly different in order to create chaos. Just thought I'd escalate this post...rather quickly. Ha!

[John V]

it seems like you dont seem to understand evolution very well.

Probably better than you.

To me, creationists say the same things, and after watching what people like ken ham have to say, its over my head stupid. They dont use real science, they dont test anything they claim, how are they reliable????

I didn't claim they are.

[xr34p3rx]

it seems like you dont seem to understand evolution very well.

Probably better than you.

To me, creationists say the same things, and after watching what people like ken ham have to say, its over my head stupid. They dont use real science, they dont test anything they claim, how are they reliable????

I didn't claim they are.

ok then, explain evolution. and it seems like you do, do you?