If creationism were true, wouldn’t that mean that no animal species could be related to another? And DNA would be varied from species to species showing no relationship at all. Every species would be related only to itself, having come from no common ancestor. Horses would not be related to zebras, wolves to coyotes, polar bears to grizzly bears, or llamas to camels. Tigers and lions could not be related, and would be incapable of cross-species reproduction. There would be no ligers or tigons. That applies to plants as well. We would be unable to cross-pollinate two different plants to come up with a hybrid.

Tags: creationism, evolution

Views: 975

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

One advantage us gays have, is the direct stimulation and massage of the prostate gland. Studies have shown that that helps to prevent prostate cancer.

Dogs themselves are proof of natural selection, because every single breed that lives today is a product of artificial selection. Natural selection is the exact same process, but without human (or divine) intervention. Pure Blood Mustangs are proof of natural selection, because they are obviously cross-bread wild horses, but have on average better stamina and strength than pure bread horses. Try getting a creationist to consider this though, and you'll see what a pure bread headache feels like.

I've heard of ice cream headaches, but bread headaches?

Typo due to sleep deprivation at the time of writing. Spell check doesn't work on homophones.

The non-existence of an “intelligent designer” is established by the evolution of a species which can believe in one. -- the anti-supernaturalist

This is brilliant in its simplicity.

I think I have to disagree... If I were to create something using DNA, I would probably reuse the DNA as much as possible to same myself the effort of rebuilding the wheel (or leg). So we would expect to similarities between different species. On the other hand: if I were omnipotent, I wouldn't care about the amount of effort and would make all species entirely different.

Another point of interest: some creationists will tell you that there is no breeding between "kinds". They can't tell you what defines a "kind" but they can tell you that cat is one kind, so both lions and tigers are of the cat kind, and can in theory, breed.

Isn't psuedo-science fun?

You have to have fun with the omnipotence, or what's the point? I would make every specie's code completely unique just to prove how awesome I am...I mean if you can create whatever by willing it to be or molding dirt, why the hell not keep it fresh? If you're god, you could possibly even accomplish more work in less time if you so desired. 

But, why couldn't an all-powerful deity do with DNA whatever he wanted, even if it weren't necessary?

If Creationism were true, we'd have other examples of it.  Unfortunately, things just don't "pop" out of thin-air (that's magic).  We literally have zero evidence of Creationism.  We have evidence for the conditions of abiogenesis, but nothing such as Creationism promotes.  

Even in other "multi-Universes," the Laws we know would still apply on some foundational levels --- i.e., how matter forms, etc.  

We only live on a knife's edge in THIS galaxy.  If it seems like it's "designed" for us, I can sure you there are plenty of other "designs" I'd prefer over this extremely dangerous, yet seemingly exurban, corner of the Universe --- i.e. --- I'd prefer a completely closed system where we don't have to rely on other happenings (entropy, black holes, asteroids, etc) for our immediate survival.   

Tenacious DNA - a 12.21minute youtube that everyone should see :)

Its a good one.  Heavily cribs from the "walking with" group of series; I do hope it doesn't get DMCA'd

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service