AIG: Transitional Species Were Created

Creationists are always telling us that the “kinds” of species are fixed, unchanged since they were created 6,000 years ago, and despite the claims of those hell-bound Darwinists, one kind never evolves into another.

Not only do they insist that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, they also say there no living transitionals. Each of the created “kinds” is and always has been unique and unchangeable.

Those claims are easy to debunk. Regarding fossils, we always link to Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. Also, there’s no shortage of living transitionals — e.g.: semi-terrestrial fish like walking catfish and lungfish, gliding mammals like flying squirrels, flying mammals like bats, semi-aquatic mammals like seals and sea lions, fully aquatic mammals like whales and porpoises, and aquatic birds like penguins.

In utter obliviousness to the irony involved, creationists sometimes talk about living transitional species and — get this! — they proclaim them to be wonders of creation. A good example was just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title is Flying Fish — Aquatic Flight Instructors.

It was written by Dr. Don DeYoung. This is his biography page at AIG, which says he’s the retired chairman of the Science and Mathematics Department at Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana. In other words, he’s a bible college creation scientist. Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

When you think of the marvels of flight, what creatures come to mind? Perhaps majestic birds like the eagle or falcon, whose sleek design has inspired centuries of dreamers like Leonardo DaVinci and the Wright brothers. Or perhaps — with a little prompting — you might think of bats or bumblebees. Or if you’ve watched a dinosaur movie lately, perhaps a flying reptile, such as the pterosaur. But a fish?

Egad — what kind of a “kind” is that? Utterly unaware of the problem this presents for creationism, Don says:

More than sixty species of fish can escape their watery world and glide through the air. This unusual skill enables them to escape underwater predators and cover vast distances quickly.

Then he discuses the research of a mechanical engineer, Haecheon Choi, who studied the features of flying fish. We can skip all that. At the end of his article, Don tells us:

Fossils of flying fish resemble modern-day varieties, and this is no surprise. Sea life first appeared — in all its varied kinds [including the transitional kind] — on Day Five of the Creation Week. Ever since, flying fish have been displaying their unique, God-given ability both to swim and soar.

So there you are, dear reader. Everything was created, even species that are obviously transitional forms. Darwin was a fool!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “AIG: Transitional Species Were Created

  1. Anyone who starts “I believe the literal truth of the buyBull…” can be totally ignored for anything afterward!

  2. Michael Fugate

    Why would they need to escape predators before the Fall?

  3. Why do animals have eyes?
    Either to detect prey, or to detect predators.
    Or, maybe, we are mistaken about eyes.
    But if we are mistaken about eyes, how do we know that eyes are intelligently designed?

  4. @MF – I guess they started flying after the Fall. Same as roses only developed thorns after that incident with the snake.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Then we should see transitional species, no?

  6. David Evans

    I remember when Gish,or some such person, was laughing at the idea that there could be anything transitional between a land animal and a whale. He had a picture of a half-cow, half-manatee to prove how silly it was.

    Now, of course, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and the like are just more proof of the brilliance of God’s design. It’s hard to keep up sometimes.

  7. Michael Fugate

    Reading Trump’s rambling nonsense on climate change and the Green New Deal @ CPAC reminded me of creationists –
    “To laughter, Trump continued, mockingly: “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.’”

    The crowd erupted in cheers and applause.”

  8. “Those claims are easy to debunk.”
    They can’t be debunked because YECers carefully avoid to specify what they mean with “kinds”. Exactly this is Donnie’s trick.

  9. Land animals, like Pakicetus-kind, were created on day 6. Whale-kind were created on day 5. Flying kinds were created on day 5. This rules out the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
    What about caterpillars and butterflies?
    In olden days, caterpillars where considered to be different individuals from the butterflies that rose from them. It was called “equivocal generation”, a third sort of generation, along with “spontaneous generation” and “univocal generation” (as universally accepted today). Read the Wikipedia article on spontaneous generation and you will learn about the goose barnacle.
    It has been only a short time from when the basics of generaton were well understood

  10. Dr. Don breathlessly writes: “Now, flight engineers have discovered another source of inspiration — creatures of the sea!”

    Creationists never stop marveling at God’s wonders. Just think if a creationist engineer could invent a flying submarine (yes: a submarine that actually flies!). At the first sign of depth charges, it could take to the air; and when enemy fighter planes started closing in, it could dive back into the sea!

  11. @ChisS
    Art imitates nature, necessity is the mother of invention.
    Richard Frank in Wikiquote

  12. With regards to deYoung’s resume, I’m wondering how do Bible colleges find students to attend their institutions? I’m just thinking about what kind of person goes to Grace College in Indiana to learn creationism???? Who does that??? They have to pay tuition at Liberty U also , a better known creationism “school”. Seriously????? How many of these schools are there and how many students do they have? If, they’re generating a new graduating class nationwide from schools that are teaching creationism, doesn’t that suggest that there are alot of fundamentalist bible college grads out there…Do they all go into the church?? Crazy stuff. Its an industry. A tax free one too.

  13. Why would transitional species (TS) be created in the first place? Makes no sense unless one invokes evolution, or that the mighty creator thought it’d better make TS knowing that some inevitable day evolutionists could be fooled into thinking evolution was the answer?

  14. “When you think of the marvels of flight, what creatures come to mind?”

    Actually, I think of the fantastic creatures in Greek mythology, that I recall from childhood stories and Ray Harryhausen films — the hippogriff, or the harpy. Pegasus the winged horse. Products of man’s imagination, far more wondrous than God’s.

    Shame these marvels never actually lived. They might have served for better evidence of creationism. Instead: nature casting up “forms most endless”; subtle variations on biological themes, entirely consistent with Darwin’s concept of descent with modification. Organisms constrained by natural laws, with nothing extending beyond the limits of its genetic inheritance.

    Perfect irony, then, when creationists picture transitional fossils along the lines of unreal hybrids, straight out of our collective myths and folklore, and crow in imbecilic victory when these monstrosities fail to appear in the record.

  15. @ChrisS
    Yes, non-existent things are designed.
    What does that tell us about design? I think that it tells us that design is not an explanation for existence.
    What does design explain?
    All of the clever designers that we know of have never been responsible for a perpetual motion machine. That tells me that, if life violates the laws of thermodynamics, then don’t appeal to design for a satisfying answer.
    What does design explain?

  16. @TomS
    Nature and “design” seem to me to be two very different, unrelated things. Organic, biological entities don’t evince signs of a “designer”, because, instead, they clearly resemble things that already exist elsewhere in nature, or at least once did. We can confidently say those things evolved from something similar; and that processes in nature did the “designing”, in lieu of any conscious goal or agent.

  17. Ken Phelps

    Och Wil – “…how do Bible colleges find students to attend their institutions?”

    Gaze across the sea of transfixed eyes backdropping any Trump speech.

  18. @TomS: “What does design explain?”
    The thinking of someone who transformed it into a drawing, a blueprint or something similar. Typically we know (or at least have a hunch) how that someone did the drawing and what materials he/she used etc. That’s why your analysis of design and mine don’t contradict each other. I’m thinking of what you wrote about “design implies recognizing limits” and other stuff.

    @ChrisS: serious religious thinkers (ie not IDiots) will say that some god directed those processes. They also will admit that that’s theology, not science. IDiots and other creacrappers ao depend on a false dilemma.

  19. docbill1351

    I’ll give deYoung a snark pass for today because – flying fish!

    I saw my first flying fish last year on a trip to Hawaii. We were on a boat cruise/snorkle trip at Kauai. We were cruising along quite quickly when a school of flying fish appeared on our port side. What I didn’t realize until seeing them in action was HOW FAR they flew! It wasn’t just hopping out of the water and, plunk, back in, but they glided for 50-100 yards. I was totally amazed and humbled by this example of our Creator’s power and glory and the miracles He produced on Day 5 of Creation Week.

    OK, I couldn’t refrain from snark mode. My bad. Sue me.

  20. Techreseller

    Do Flying FIsh hold their breath while in the air? Creationists want to know!. Well maybe they do not.

  21. Have much dumber can creationists get? Ken Ham and his lackeys are annoying and need to learn real science.