Yes, I would say that variation in species occurred after the flood (as well as before it). The Bible says that God created animals after “their kind.” That leaves room for a great deal of variation. Some variation would have come about through mutation, but certainly not all or even most. I’m taller than my mother and father and have a different hair color, but that doesn’t mean I’m a mutant. Creationists do not deny that mutations affect the gene pool. They simply question whether mutations plus natural selection could produce the kinds of changes necessary for molecule-to-man evolution. If we go by what is observed today, then the answer is a resounding “no.”

So it’s the word “rock” that you are taking issue with, correct? Okay, how about “evolutionists believe that life arose out of gas and dust which formed clouds that later collapsed and formed a rock (the Earth).” According to my college textbook (perhaps outdated now) lightning struck a pool of chemicals on the rocky surface which contained some amino acids or something and, poof! the first living cell was born. Whether you want to call it a “rock” or not, according to the theory of evolution, there was no life before this. These gases and whatnot broke down to form chemicals and amino acids and all that good stuff which eventually came together to form the first living cell. Ultimately life arose from gases and dust (the “rock” to which the creationist referred). Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I see. I didn’t realize there were such lectures available. I can’t speak for AiG staff. I’m not affiliated with them in any way. FYI AiG does public lectures, too. The scholar in question may not be calling for censorship, but he did specifically say, “creation scientists cannot have a directly positive effect on folks’ understanding of science…” That is either the height of arrogance or abject fear (come to think of it, maybe it is just arrogance). I’m also tired of evolutionists claiming that creationists “twist science” or “take facts out of context” just because they draw different conclusions than their evolutionist counterparts. Creationists do bring something to the table, and it’s quite frustrating that evolutionists will not admit shortcomings in their theory.

If the distinction is not clear, why take issue with the statement that “dogs came from a rock”?

Non sequitur. Another logical fallacy. I thought this was a “critical thinking” blog (well, actually, I didn’t think that, but given its title…).

You seem to be moving the goal posts.

No, I’m just pointing out that things exist which don’t easily fit into the categories of “life” versus “non-life”.

Moreover, the scholar in question did not for one moment suggest that AiG or creationists in general be censored in any way, and he certainly did not mention any lawsuits. He simply offered an opinion on the material he observed at the museum and his perception of its usefulness. No fear involved.

Thanks for coming to my defense.

Evolution is “only” a theory, but so are a lot of other widely held beliefs like certain theories of gravity. Gotta be careful with that one.

As for thermodynamics, evolutionists claim that open systems are an exception. This isn’t true, but you have to be careful with this one, too.

They also have quite a long list of transitional species, since they believe that everything evolves, everything is, in effect, a transitional species.

I don’t know what their responses will be to the other issues you brought up, so let’s wait and see.

I would like evolutionists to answer a few things for me:
(1) Spontaneous generation – science has NEVER been able to create life out of non-life. Show me one example of this actually happening.
(2) Entropy (second LAW of thermodynamics) – this states that things deteriorate over time, while evolution requires that rather than dispersing, that they come together and get stronger. So the very idea of evolution goes against this scientific law. Explain exactly how all of nature could defy this scientific law.
(3) Transitional species – Darwin pointed out that the fossil record would have to show thousands of “in-between” animals. To date, not one “missing link” has ever been found, especially when moving from one species to another. Show me one transitional species.
(4) Sex – If we started as a single-sex organism that reporoduced on it’s own, then what evolutionary benefit would tehre be in requiring two sexes to reproduce? In addition to that, it would have taken millions of years for each sex to evolve separately. In this case, how then could either survive without the other being fully evolved. In order for this to work both sexes would have had to instantly change and realize that they required each other all within a single lifetime (which is not very long).

I could go on for a while, but even science which has discoverd the complexity of the human genome, and the age of the universe (by finding it’s boundary), cannot create even the human eye. Statistically, science would rule it impossible for even an eyeball to evolve because there would not be enough time for the correct mutations to occur.

The worst part is that our public schools are teaching this junk. If anyone who reads this went to college and walked away as an evolutionist, I would ask for your money back! But if you still choose to believe that unsubstantiated myth, then I’ve got some property in Florida that I want to sell you…

Evolutionists just fight so hard, because there is no other alternative, except…. :-)

If the professor in question did visit the museum, great. My issue is that evolutionists like to try to silence opposition. The creationists used to do this when they were in charge, and evolutionists fault them for it. Now that the tables are turned I guess censorship is fine again.