They also don't consider how long it would have taken for people and animals to regain their populations, diversity, and dispersal so quickly. Or how the Chinese civilization was around for 500 years when the flood occurred.
But look creationists can play math games.

Kind of like how Cain and Abel, who are allegedly the first two offspring of a man and a woman, ever, went off to cities and found wives and so on.

The explanation for that I've heard is that Adam and Eve had daughters, but of course its not important to record the names of women.

So it was an Arkansas-style family?

Did they say that the daughters went and built the cities? That'd be a really huge monument to sexual frustration.

This should be funny, but when you consider how much of the US population and how many of our elected officials believe it you just get angry instead.

It's one of those things where you ask, "If you're going to say that God Magic did something, like make the ENTIRE WORLD flood, then why do you need an Ark that makes sense anyway? Why not just have that run on God Magic, too?"

It really highlights a deep need Christians seem to have for SOME part of their fairy tales to be "real."

...that Christ's teachings are far more powerful when you're not trying to count how many goddamned dinosaurs can fit in a rowboat."


very nice sir. Very nice indeed.

Indeed 5 stars for you. How many dinosaurs can you fit in a rowboat has become the modern theologian's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

that worked for some students when I taught the bible as history at my small west coast lib arts college, but some absolutely rejected everything.

If you're dealing with genuine dedicated seekers of truth, that might work. But for a great many religious people, religion is a matter of comfort, upbringing, and tribal loyalty. Asking them to challenge their tribe's dictates is a non-starter, and in fact will make you a trouble-maker in their minds.

Look at the mildly entertained white people in the audience starting at around 5:37 or so:

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=50756

It's not that they're enjoying the performance, it's that they are Christians and this is Christian and therefore they're obligated to enjoy it. To do otherwise would be an affront to the tribe.

The argument I've heard is that while many different 'kinds' of dogs came from those two dogs, they're still just dogs. If they didn't change in kind (and getting a creationist to define 'kind' is nigh impossible) then evolution didn't happen.

Yeah, it still doesn't make sense. They're effectively claiming a super evolution happened, even if they don't use that word.

Most Creationists I know readily acknowledge the existence of animal husbandry - the idea that selective breeding can produce dissimilar variant populations within the same species. It's one of the fundamental principles of agrarian society. Dogs are a perfect example of this: there are many, many "breeds" of dogs, and their emergence is well-verified by historical records. Yet, for all their variety, as Kieran says, dogs are still "just" dogs. Species tend to be defined by sexual compatibility - if you can fuck it and make a baby, chances are, you're the same species. Pitbulls can mate with poodles and produce sexually viable offspring, they're all the same species, regardless of how different they look. Normally, this would be the educated creationist's fallback strategy: acknowledge the ability of animals to breed clusters of offspring with certain uniquely identifiable traits, while denying the ability of sexual selection to produce populations so divergent that they can no longer interbreed with their parent population. Husbandry's not evolution! etc etc etc

What Wretched is proposing here is something completely different. They're proposing that all post-flood animals were created from a genus-level common ancestor; THAT'S EVOLUTION. It's a rather stupid type of evolution - it's a hyper-hyper-saltationist position, which claims that full speciation can occur in a matter of centuries, maybe even years - but it's still evolution. They're obviously trying to score points against Darwinian science, yet what they've actually done here is reject Creationism, and enthusiastically embrace a form of Darwinism so outlandish and patently false that not even the biggest commie-Nazi-atheist Darwin lover would support it.

Fucking idiots.

Anyway, at first I was thinking that maybe these guys are "soft ID" proponents. After all, there are some "Creationists" who believe in evolution, as defined by modern science. They simply graft God onto the end: "Evolution happens, but it's not a blind, directionless scramble based on sexual fitness. It's the mechanism God chooses to use, and it's all planned out ahead of time to ensure the March of Progress".

Yet, exploring the channel further, you find a number of videos in which Wretched strongly condemns the idea of Christians "compromising" Biblical literalism and embracing the ideas of "secular science". These guys aren't liberal apologists, looking for ways to reconcile empirical scientific truths with Biblical stories. So the only explanation I can offer for why they made this argument, is that they didn't bother thinking about what they were saying at all, they just said it.

This is the great divide between "microevolution" and "macroevolution": "microevolution" can be used to explain undeniable or convenient instances of evolution, but "macroevolution" -- by which ducks can turn into crocodiles or whatever -- is a myth.

And they're right, macroevolution is a myth, on at least two levels. Firstly, there is only "evolution" and there aren't fun-sized and family-sized versions; and secondly, evolution doesn't allow for the ridiculous transformations that creationists attribute to "macroevolution".

About 90% of Creationists' problem with evolution is that it says mankind evolved. Really I should say that 90% of the problem that Creationist leaders have is that mankind evolved; the followers will embrace whatever degree of evolution has been approved, which currently stands at the "microevolution" level. If, in 50 years, the leaders start saying that mankind evolved, the followers will come around to that stance in astonishingly quick fashion.

Reputedly, a display at Ken Ham's Creation "Museum" shows the pre-flood fauna as being some kind of generic "kind" e.g. "horse kind" (from which sprung all horses and relatives), etc.

AronRa (among others) made a video that addresses this oversimplification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU