Creationists DO believe in Natural Selection and Speciation

[ImmortalFlame]

FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION:
allow me to define the term "religion"

"RELIGION:the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs"

That definition is so broad that it includes political parties, hobby groups, work collegues, student groups, philosophies, sports teams, most social gatherings and any and all groups that function in any kind of society.

In other words, it can basically apply to any group ever. Try using the actual definition of religion.

now by this definition, Creationism is CLEARLY a religion. Ill admit i dont know where God came from, I rely upon faith and BELIEF.
Now, according to the Big Bang Theory (and i am paraphrasing) there was a single piece pf dust smaller than a period at the end of this sentence, surrounded by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. the dust began to heat up, then began to swirl, and then combusted, shooting outwards creating everything simultaneously.

You've not even read anything about what the big bang theory states, have you?

I have merely one question.
Where did the dust come from that did all of this?
oh you dont know where the dust came from? Or even the particles that made the dust? you dont know where any of it came from? interesting.... so you have to BELIEVE the dust was there? Of course you do.

This is a profoundly wrongheaded argument. You don't have to know the origin of something in order to rightly believe it is or was there. I do not need to witness the birth of my parents to rightfully tell you that my parents exist and were born. Physics predicts the existence of the universal singularity (what you refer to as the "dust" for some reason) based on the evidences we have observed in the Universe. It's not a conclusion based on faith.

Because it is untestable, and there isnt even a good theory about where the dust came from. If you have to BELIEVE it was there, it is NOT science. It IS a religion.

Your lack of logic is astounding.

"No amout of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -ALBERT EINSTEIN

And that is absolutely correct. What of it?

 

[AdamsDream]

You do realise that this argument requires hyper evolution at a rate never seen? Multiple species of big cat would need to have evolved in extremely short timespans (and they would need to do so without leaving evidence of the genetic bottleneck that results from starting from only 2 animals). Ancient Egyptian writings contain references to lions, leopards and cheetahs.

Even faster than you probably realize. The flood was 4357 years ago according to biblicreationism. 3503-3463 years ago the PlatoForms had speciated (Leviticus et al) so they had less than 900 years to evolve from a catlike animal to tigers, hyena's and mummified cats. Impressive.
This gives us reasons to be optimistic about genetic manipulation. As it's by divine and inherent limitation in all species impossible to genetically construct a new species environmentalists shouldn't worry to much. The same goes for those that worry about possible future pandemia. As every bacterium has allready speciated to the limit you can only have very limited variation, not enough to cause real danger to humans.

 

[idav]

We can mean many different things when we talk about evolution. In this thread, I am going to differentiate and define each one.

The first I am going to call "Natural selection"
All creationists with their head screwed on believe this. One of the biggest misconceptions about creationism is that the all of evolutionary theory is rejected. But even biblical creationists do actually believe evolution!
This type of evolution is nothing but genetics + time, or allele frequency change over time. We can observe allele frequencies changing over time, we can observe natural selection fine tuning allele frequency changes. It is repeatable. It is science, in every sense of the word. All creationists believe it.

Creationists have no problem with saying there was one ancestral finch species. The bible does say God created all animals reproducing according to their kinds, but a kind is not the same thing as a species. A kind means, God created the finch kind, which gave rise to a common finch species.
All creationists believe tigers and lions had a common ancestor. As did donkeys and horses. The list goes on. (This also means there were a lot less animals to fit onto Noahs Ark!)

It is about time + change in genetics. The problem with young earth creationists is that they dont allow enough time to allow for the common ancestor idea to be true, so they ignore the science in order to hold onto the idea that many kinds were created at once and then speciated.

 

[siweLSC]

It is about time + change in genetics. The problem with young earth creationists is that they dont allow enough time to allow for the common ancestor idea to be true, so they ignore the science in order to hold onto the idea that many kinds were created at once and then speciated.

Oh no, there is a lot more to it than the 6000 years. I am sure any biblical creationist would say that there couldn't have been a common ancestor, even if there was enough time. One of the key creationists claims is that genetics + time cannot lead to complex new structures or an increase in genetic fitness.
Note that this is not to say that populations will not adapt to their environment, just that the overall fitness will not go up.