A Question for Creationists

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No it wouldn't. You just have a very strange definition of 'good'. What is your definition by the way, and why is it any less arbitrary than defining God to be good?

Indeed, it would be pretty stupid to go and give us proof that he exists, if he wants us to believe that he exists through an act of faith.

People believe what they have been given reason to believe. Otherwise a believer would have to believe everything. There could be no valuation of ideas because that would include reason.

That is not contradictory at all. Do you believe you have free-will? Would you rather be an automaton? Or maybe you believe you are?

Free will is a nice concept (for human ego), but it doesn't have any chance to work with an omniscient being. God would have had to have known what choices we would make before he created us. That means there must be some sort of predictable mechanism for our choices. Thus by creating us as he did, he would have predestined our choices.

If God is not considered omniscient, then things make a little more sense. There's still a problem with free will and causality though. Even if you allow for randomness that doesn't allow for choice. You don't choose what the dice turn up as. Free will is just an illusion created by our inability to completely understand why we do what we do.

[Bosh]

Jack, how do you explain people like Michael Behe, who doubt Evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint?

There's an old Christian tradition of the two Relevations, namely that one is the Bible and whatnot and one is the natural world and both bear testament to the nature and existance of God. Among the scientific community this view has almost entirely died out (due to complete lack of evidence for it) but there's a few isolated cases of it which I don't view as especially surprising or damning of evolution.

You are trying to force me into a religious defense

But isn't that what your objection to evolution is really based on?
In bits like:

I don't care whether God created the earth in 1 nanosecond or 1 billion years.

you sound like you think the scientific specifics (or even evolution itself) is pretty much irrelevant next to the religious issues.

There is no need for me to provide my own theory, all I need to do is to conclusively demonstrate that Evolution is lacking in a major area, without which it cannot survive.

No, not really. Unless a better model is provided is makes sense to keep on using evolution as a useful model that helps us in at least some ways (kind of like Ptomelean astronomy would still be useful even if disproved is Heliocentrism was not put forward as an alternative, hell even if creationism could be definitively proven evolution would still probably make a better model (what with "appearance of age" and whatnot).

[Jack the Bodiless]

VictorB212:

If you are the same "Victor" who was here before, then you WERE a Young-Earth, literal-Genesis creationist. And the topic of this thread was the comparison between the scientific model and the Genesis model. It's good to see that you are moving in the right direction.

"Intelligent Design" makes no positive claim that can be tested. For that reason, it is also technically "unscientific", because a claim that cannot be theoretically falsified lies outside science: there is no way to prove that a God is NOT responsible (though possible to show that the God has a pretty eccentric way of doing things).

Michael Behe is not a creationist: he is more accurately described as a theistic evolutionist who believes in divine intervention in the process. He accepts that the processes of evolution generally work, but as a theist, he has a vested interest in leaving a role for God.

I "know" that evolution is fact because it IS fact: Behe knows this, and so do you. Creationists and ID'ers call it "micro-evolution", but they accept that it is real.

ID'ers seek to demonstrate that evolution by random mutation and natural selection alone is insufficient to account for the range of life-forms that exist on Earth. Behe thought he had an answer with "irreducible complexity": complex structures that cannot function without all components in place. What he failed to account for is that if a structure fails NOW if a component is removed, this does not prove that the structure always had this problem. A structure can start simple, become progressively more complex, then the creature can gradually become dependent on the complex structure, so that it cannot survive if a formerly non-essential part of the structure is modified or removed. An obvious example is the human heart: distortion or removal of the heart will kill a modern human, but our distant ancestors did not need hearts at all (we can see this by studying simpler organisms that survive quite happily without them).

To demonstrate that a particular feature "could not have evolved", the ID'er must prove that there is no route by which the feature could have developed in small, incremental steps. To refute the ID'er, all that is required is to suggest such a route: it is not necessary to "prove" that this is definitely how it happened, only to point out that it COULD have happened that way.

This has been done for each of Behe's examples, such as the bacterial flagellum. So far, it has been done for every other example presented by ID'ers.

Some of the less cautious and more "creationist" ID advocates have also embarrassed themselves by making clearly false claims such as "beneficial mutations do not happen" or "mutations cannot increase information". They are wrong. Beneficial mutations can and do increase information. There is no "magic barrier" which somehow stops this, and it has been observed to occur.

[VictorB212]

Zhu, I will have to get back to you on the intelligent design movement within the scientific community.

My objection to Evolution is that the way I see part of the evidence, it cannot work. As you can hopefully see, I am quite willing to expand my horizons and view more evidence.

You totally misinterpreted what I said about not caring how long it took God to make the earth. You see, that does not really matter to me, and it should not matter in this debate. I'm not in the position of supporting a theory; I'm in the position of debunking one. Since you did not seem to get the point: I really do not see the need to be a young or old-earth creationist. Whether one or the other occurs does not affect my life very much. Whether Evolution occurs does. Hell, I would like to believe that what I do doesn't matter in the long run, but that's not where the evidence and faith point me. If I were not concerned about scientific specifics, I would not have posted here.

I can see your fallback position: Even if Evolution can't work, it's still a very useful model. Granted, but a model for what? I think it's an excellent model for microevolution. For creation of new organs, I think it's totally insufficient. Newtonian mechanics works fine for the slow stuff. But for matter approaching the speed of light, it totally breaks down.

The bottom line is that Evolution says there is NO NEED for a GOD. Most prominent supporters will agree 100% with that. Sir Julian Huxley reputed retorted: "It is because the concept of a Creator-God interferes with our sexual mores. Thus, we have rationalized God out of existence. To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland" (Hanegraaff, 22).

Quick question: What percentage of the fossil record consists of transitionals, and what percentage consists of long-classified, distinct species? If you're thinking of claiming that they're all transitionals, then you would be technically correct from your viewpoint, but would not be helping the discussion at all.

---

Jack, maybe I was a YEC (right now I can see that it really is irrelevant even to me), but that should be irrelevant as stated above. The topic was how the earth would be different, and I stated that. Then I went on to explain the information aspect. Maybe I was drifting a little off-topic, but not very much.

Intelligent design can easily be proved wrong by demonstrating conclusively that the data that exists in even the most primitive organisms can come about via random processes.

I know that Behe is not a creationist -- your point seems to be that he is not to be trusted because of his "vested interest in leaving a role for God"? If so, then you must not understand the process whereby a judge discards all previous opinions when listening to a case, etc., etc., or just don't believe that can happen.

I apologize for not making myself clear: The only problem I have with evolution (microevolution) is that it has been hyperextended and used to "prove" macroevolution. I do not believe Evolution, or macroevolution (with no divine intervention) can or does occur. I thought you knew this was my stance; have I not made it clear? Do you also "know" that Evolution (macro) IS fact? You know how confusing the two are.

Has anything done with "the step before" any of Behe's examples? I thought his claim was that quite a few of today's structures could not have a "step before," since all pieces were interconnected. If I understand you correctly, you say that as time passes, different parts become more and more interconnected, to the point where they evolve into being irreducibly complex? I think it would still need a "step before," correct?

I should think you are acquainted with the idea that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore I don't see how an ID'er could prove there is no path by which an organism could evolve. What the Evolutionist does have to prove is that it is possible.

You are claiming that it is only necessary to "point out" or "suggest" ways that organisms could evolve. I don't see how you can get around the experimental part where you demonstrate in a repeatable fashion how your suggestions would work. You will claim that your link above does that: you saw my response. Changing "he" to "she" (adding a letter) changes it a little, but it is still pretty much the same sentence. Changinge a sentence, for example, to the past tense, does not seem feasible. Stories of how something could theoretically evolve might sound neat, but they do need to be substantiated.

You say that each of Behe's examples have been debunked -- even the one about blood clotting, which he said had never been directly approached?

Mutations alter informations by changing a few characteristics, moving a few chunks around, and deleting a few characteristics (what am I missing here?). Do I increase information if I have 2 copies of the encyclopedia? Yes, your example does sort of create new information, but not New Information. It didn't do anything approaching a new organ, or even membrane. What's the most.... "innovative" mutation you know that has happened?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, please provide a link or something showing those supposed satellite images of Mt. Ararat.

The link I posted can get you to the photos. Its a big rock that looks much like all the other rocks on the mountain only a bit larger. Most of them have angular shapes likely due to the type of sedimentary rock they broke away from.

For a boat it looks amazingly like a rock. You should see some of the older 'photos' of other rock formations that have been called the Ark. Where its really obvious that the black and photo had been heavily modified with a pencil enven without seeing the many unmodified color photos of the same formation.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by VictorB212
Jack, how do you explain people like Michael Behe, who doubt Evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint? He is Catholic, but not a very active one, and stated explicitly that he believed Evolution could only happen if some sort of designer had implanted all the genetic information available today in the first living organism.

I explain him in two ways. One he IS NOT a young Earth Creationist so he is actualy proving Fundamentalist beliefs wrong. He does NOT deny evolution. He only claims that Abiogenesis is impossible. He is wrong. He made a lot of very dubious assumptions many of which have been shown wrong.

If he claimed ALL the information must have been in the first life he is bleeding moron. I don't think he said something so ignorant from what I have seen of his claims. The information gained in the genome through evolution comes from the environment. It does not magicaly arise by random chance. Even Behe must be aware of this unless he too is actively ignorant.

According to what you said, it is impossible to argue for a point that you do not agree with in debate class. I am a creationist: what that really means is that I believe God somehow created the earth, through a non-random process. (Unless you claim abiogenesis was non-random...)

Abiogenesis need not be wholey random. Indeed chemistry must act according to natural laws. Given enough time and enough reactions in a large enough body of water low probability events become inevitable. The only question is what the odds are and Behe made his up for the purpose of making them look impossible. They were not based on evidence, they were based on his desire to disprove.

To tell the truth, I don't care whether God created the earth in 1 nanosecond or 1 billion years. What I do care about is that the Earth was not created from some random (poetic license used) process that can explain life on earth WITHOUT the need for some sort of creator. One of Evolution's main claims is that there is no need for a god, as you assuredly know. I disagree with that.

Evolution makes no claims about god one way or the other. However it does show that life as presently exists can evolve from simpler forms to reach the point we are now at. That does mean a god is not required but it does not say the one can't exist, in fact it says nothing about god on its own, except of course it does show Genesis wrong but that is unintional and comes from the evidence not from a desire to disprove. If the only reason you don't want accept the reality of evolution is because it would make it possible that your belief is wrong than your belief isn't worth much. Beliefs that depend on denial are worthless.

I am arguing from the Intelligent Design standpoint. There is no need for me to provide my own theory, all I need to do is to conclusively demonstrate that Evolution is lacking in a major area, without which it cannot survive.

Which has never been done. Behe failed to do what he claimed he did. He made up stuff that he can't justify.

I am in no way arguing for a major flood, or a 6000 year lifespan for the earth. You are trying to force me into a religious defense -- something I will not do. I am going to argue scientifically.

Science is against you. I suspect that you do believe in the Flood and want to avoid that can of worms. If you argue scientificaly you will be one of the few. Even then you will almost certainly be using bad science. Like Behe for instance and his made up numbers.

Don't tell me that all scientists believe in Evolution -- I know there are movements in the scientific community against it that are not religion-based, but science-based.

There is no such movement. There is however a movement in Creationism to lie about it. Lying is nothing new amongst Creationists. They do it constantly. Even after admiting error they will repeat the same lie to fresh audiences till they are caught so often they finally give on the most blatent of the lies. It took many years for them stop lying about dinosaur tracks mixed with human tracks even after the man that faked the tracks admitted it. In fact that same lie is still all over the net.

You "know" that evolution is a fact -- I "know" that evolution cannot occur.

No you only have been misinformed. You don't know it. You only think it. There is NO evidence to support you so can not actually know it for a fact. However there is LOTS of evidence showing that evolution does occur and none showing it doesn't. That means we CAN KNOW that evolution is real. It is utterly false to pretend that your position is equal to the scientific one.

We both "know" the other is wrong. We BOTH think the other is misinformed.

We can and have proved our postition. You have only postured.

Please stop your ad-hominem insults -- they get nowhere. Also, you state that I am starting from a false premisis. I.e., that intelligent design is required. How often have you debated with someone who takes this stance, instead of a creationist stance?

I don't know about Jack but I certainly have done so many times over several years and I know that Jack has done so lately right here.

Do you really deny that there is a movement in the scientific community against evolution, which does not just consist of two scientists in Alaska?

Well if you want to make up both sides of the arguement like that then no I don't deny it. However that was a false statement you just made. No one except you mentioned two scientists in Alaska. Its a few dozen to a few hundred real scientists and some lawyers and theologists and mostly a lot of people that have never even looked at Scientific American. The scienists are nearly all working outside their fields.

The ICR has exactly ONE geologist. He is not the imbecile responsible for hydroplate theory. That one is an engineer that has never run the numbers on his hypothesis which means he is VERY BAD engineer. The geologist has engaged in deliberately distortionist research that he HAD to know was a distortion or he wouldn't have hidden the parts of the data he hid.

Gish has been caught repeating falsehoods many times. The dinosaur tracks was only one of them. He lied about Lucy's knee. He did so for a very long time after his error was pointed out to him which makes it a lie not a mere mistake.

Behe made up the odds for his book. He had to make them up for the simple reason that no one knows what the odds were. He deliberatly chose numbers that would support his claim and he evaded anything might show he was overstating things by many orders of magnitude.

I haven't mentioned any "Gospel truths." I'm starting from a scientific base. My religious beliefs have no role in this debate; a judge would declare them irrelevant.

What scientific basis? All you did was mention Behe and he did not have any science to support him. He had to make up the numbers.

Regarding your new information web page: If you want to regard that as new information, then fine; I will have to change what I said to New Information or something like that. This seems to be exactly the case between microeveolution and macroevolution. The bacterium did not grow a new feature, or anything remotely like that. All that happened was an enzyme changed. This really cannot explain how the enzyme was originally formed. You will have to provide me with a few more links (and I will look for examples as well, so don't hit me with the "you expect me to find everything for you" attitude).

The ability to consume nylon most certainly IS a new feature. It is disenguous at best to say it isn't.

I suggest you be careful in your "Evolution is a FACT" attitude. It is as bad as the ardent creationists who believe that natural selection does not work. You will claim that you have science on your side, but that does not change this: you are actually being close-minded when you say that. Remember, the mind is like a parachute; it works best when open.

You should try opening yours then. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The nylon consuming bacteria alone is adequate evidence that evolution occurs.

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time. Since there is billions of years of time that covers the time apsect very well indeed.

To those arguing for a flood, or how the Bible has been proven accurate in many ways: Stop. Don't try to mix religion with science. Evolutionists love twisting the Bible and making absurd claims. All you can do is make them question the premises Evolution lays on. AFAIK, that is best done with the Intelligent Design movement. Religion vs. Science will NEVER work.

There is no need to twist the Bible to show it false. I never twist it. I do point out the twists that have been made by the Apologists though. They twist a lot.

I think that paragraph shows pretty clearly that you DO believe in the Flood. So its clear that science is not something you tolerate since it clearly shows the Flood never happened.

Do please correct me on this if I am wrong. That is do you or don't you think the Flood happened as described in the Bible? I just want to know if you are merely evading dealing with what you really believe or if you really do accept actual scientific evidence.

I have noticed that the Creationists lately have taken the stealth route. They refuse to justify their position and they refuse to admit its a religious belief they are pushing. In fact there are web sites telling Creationists not to deal with their beliefs but to attack evolution and never ever defend their own postion.

I note that you have not even been willing to say what you actually think. You look like someone that has taken the new tactics to heart. Those tactics of course are clearly dishonest. I do hope you are not one of those.

I must go again; I will search for more New Information examples and probably put together a more unified response.

How about one with some support for YOUR position? And how about you actually give your position?

[Boris Godunov]

For a boat it looks amazingly like a rock. You should see some of the older 'photos' of other rock formations that have been called the Ark. Where its really obvious that the black and photo had been heavily modified with a pencil enven without seeing the many unmodified color photos of the same formation.

Daddy, why do Creationists lie so much? Doesn't the Bible say not to do that?

[Bosh]

God solved that by sending one man to earth to be punished for it. He went to earth himself.

This I never understood very well, why does an omnipotent being need to torture himself to get things done, there must've been a simplier way? And what took him so long to get around to doing it

There is, there are books filled with evidence (for the flood)

Most of which has be discredited so thoroughly that a lot of creationists are backing away from Flood Geology and moving more towards Intelligent Design.

You have faith that the evolution theory is right.
You have faith that the scientific answers are right.

Its amazong how the definitions of "faith" and "belief" get distorted in these debates (not just you, I've seen a lot of atheists do similar things). Read some Hume, he lays things out fairly well, the only things that make sense to really "believe" in are if/then statements like "if the basic axioms of math are correct then 2 + 2 = 4" but we can't be really sure about ANYTHING that's based AT ALL in experience since our senses could be deluding us, we can only make educated guesses based on the evidence. THus I don't have "faith" in evolution, science, etc. etc. and I'd be fairly irrational if I did.

Of course mamals are very alike, we're all made by the same designer ! Why should God create a complete new design for dogs if he did already make cats ?

This brings me back to my origonal question, sure you can bring up stuff that you can explain within creationism, but can you come up with any physical evidence AT ALL which can be explained by creationism but not evolution? If not all you've got is the arguement that evolution is impossible, which makes your case pretty limited.

Tell me how something can come out of nothing.

You really should have read up about vacuum flucuations (where things do in fact come from nothing) after our last debate...

The odds are high, you know. The odds are higher than the number of oppurtunities.

They're probably assuming that life formed by things randomly bumping together into simple bacteria when the first life was probably a lot simplier (go look at my first few posts) which makes their predictions bunk, in any case the odds are pretty much irrelevant thanks to the Weak Anthropic Principle (things are like they are since if they weren't that way we wouldn't be here talking about them).

It took 100 years before Darwins theory became an accepted fact among scientists. There was so little hard evidence for it, but it accumulated with time. That is why it takes active ignorance to think that evolution is not a fact.

Actually it took a LOT less time than that for evolution to become pretty much unanimous in the scientific community (with exceptions like Agassiz).

if he wants us to believe that he exists through an act of faith

Why would God possibly want to play that kind of mind game with his creation?

Do you believe you have free-will?

Nope.
environment + genetics = behavior
no evidence of anything else in the equation...

the way I see part of the evidence, it cannot work

I'm probably the last person who should be saying this, considering how scientifically ignorant I am, but you should probably read at least a bit more on evolutionary theory, in your posts (or was it CyberShy) I stopped the extremally comon misconception that each gene does one thing, when in fact one gene often does a myriad of things and one gene often triggers hundreds of others.
Also if evolution was really so easily disproven I really doubt that the pro-evolution consensus among scientists would be as strong as it is (this is, of course, not an arguement that evolution is true since new evidnece/theories could pop up at any time, merely that the creationists arguements and "evidence" are pretty unconvincing since they've had a LONG time to make their case and convinced so few scientists, especially Old Earth Creationism).

I can see your fallback position

Its not a fallback position so much as the arguement that just debunking won't cut it since no matter what else evolution is, its the best model available. All creationist theories have pretty much zero predictive power since they all boil down to "God did it and I don't know why specifically" so they're completely useless for things like finding oil, developing medecine etc. etc.

The bottom line is that Evolution says there is NO NEED for a GOD.

Right, and that's why you don't like it, not because of bits of evidence against it is "improbability."

What percentage of the fossil record consists of transitionals, and what percentage consists of long-classified, distinct species?

Asking for a transitional species is a lot like asking for half a piece of chalk, no matter how many times you break it in half the creationists will say "no that's not half a piece of chalk that's just a piece of chalk." ALL species (except "dead ends") are transitional.

Intelligent design can easily be proved wrong by demonstrating conclusively that the data that exists in even the most primitive organisms can come about via random processes.

Other way round, ID has to come up with a sorting mechanism that can tell the difference between something natural and something designed. Behe tried irreducible complexity, which didn't pan out, and there's no real replacement that I'm aware of.

Has anything done with "the step before" any of Behe's examples?

Yup, here's some info on the blood clotting, since you asked about it specifically:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

and here's a Creationist debunking Behe:

http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No it wouldn't. You just have a very strange definition of 'good'. What is your definition by the way, and why is it any less arbitrary than defining God to be good?

I didn't mention good or bad. I said dishonest. Hiding reality is dishonest.

Indeed, it would be pretty stupid to go and give us proof that he exists, if he wants us to believe that he exists through an act of faith.

That of course is an assumption that god wants us to believe on faith. I personally don't see anything stupid in wanting evidence. Since I have ample evidence that the Bible is wrong on many things I have no reason to assume the god wants faith anyway. I only have the word of fallible men.

At the very least god should not supply us with evidence that he didn't do things the way he did. Again that is a dihonest god. A dishonest god cannot be trusted.

That is not contradictory at all. Do you believe you have free-will? Would you rather be an automaton? Or maybe you believe you are?

I said mutually exclusive. They are mutually exclusive. How can we be corrupt and perfectly created simultaneausly.

Free will was not part of what I was saying. I take it you brought it up to evade what I actually said.

If you are an agnostic, then I must be a mormon!

Hi Mormon how are things in Utah? Whats the secret of your underwear? I am morbidly curious about religious underwear.

I have NEVER said there is no god. I have only said I see no reason to think one must exist. That is what Agnosticism is. The Biblical god is not the only god ever proposed so finding it impossible to believe in is not the same as an active disbelief in all possible gods.

You are the least agnostic person I have ever come across. You have an opinion on everything to do with religion, and make leaps of faith left, right and centre!

Would you care to show these alleged leaps Rogan? Will they show me as being without any support? I don't think so especially considering that I have made it clear that I don't think I know anything that cannot be questioned.

All that I know is tentative and subject to change depending on evidence. Is that clear enough for you? I have said that many times before on this forum and you were in some of the threads.

Evolution fits the evidence. There is no evidence that contradicts it. That is why I think it is real. If someone can show that it isn't real I will accept that. It will take quite a lot doing considering the vast amounts of evidence supporting it and the compleat present lack of evidence against it.

[Lung]

I warned you guys about Ethelred! He will hunt you down and dsmantle your arguments until the cows come home!!!

I'd offer Ethelred a beer for services to truth, but i fear he thinks beer drinking is illogical

[Ethelred]

I'd offer Ethelred a beer for services to truth, but i fear he thinks beer drinking is illogical

I just can't stand the taste. I am addicted to Coka Cola.

Last time I tried beer was Anchor Steam which is from San Fransico. The first or at least oldest beer made in California. No refrigeration or ice back when it was created so it was fermented at a high temperature for an American beer. Its kind of bitter, not that I am an expert.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Mutations alter informations by changing a few characteristics, moving a few chunks around, and deleting a few characteristics (what am I missing here?).

What you're missing are the genome-enlarging mutations. Various mutatuions can enlarge the total genome by duplicting chunks of it (for instance, polyploidy duplicates entire chromosomes). When a chunk has been duplicated, further point mutations in the duplicated section can produce a new trait without knocking out something essential (because a backup copy exists). So the duplication increases "information" represented by the total number of "bits" in the genome (but not the number of different characteristics encoded), then accumulated differences between the initially identical sections increases "information" represented by the number of different characteristics encoded.

For instance, the nylon-eating mutation knocked out the ability to eat normal food because that section wasn't duplicated. It's possible that this mutation has occurred before, but it would have been lethal without nylon available to feed on. As there is now a stable supply of nylon available, the ability to eat other foods doesn't matter. It's possible that the relevant section might get duplicated, and a subsequent mutation might cause that section to revert to producing an enzyyme for eating regular food. If this happens now, it would be a moderately harmful mutation (because having redundant enzymes floating about is an inefficient use of resources). However, if it happens when the supply of nylon is limited and there's a big advantage to eating regular food, the result would be a bug that can eat both. Of course, there's no guarantee that it WILL happen even if it would be advantageous, as it requires two mutations and the first provides no immediate advantage. The first would be a "neutral" mutation (neither good nor bad: the most common sort of mutation). The second would either be slightly bad or very good, depending on the circumstances.

[-=Vagrant=-]

God latest creation may have been the creation of a new cat species or "kind" in Madagaskar after it separated from Africa.
[looking for any link on the matter]
Or maybe He was last seen doing His Creation in the Lake Victoria in Africa. New species of fishes appeared out of nowhere! No evolution there, but creation.

http://www.petsforum.com/cichlidroom/articles/a084.html

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/frontier/5-97/5victori.htm

[LDiCesare]

Or maybe He was last seen doing His Creation in the Lake Victoria in Africa. New species of fishes appeared out of nowhere! No evolution there, but creation.

Did you read your links or are you cynical? They say there is less difference in the genes of 2 fish species there than in 2 human beings! This means these fish are more alike one another than you and your neighbour. Evolution can explain this "plethora" of species. The speed factor may be even faster than previously thought, that is all. That would rather tend to prove "macro" evolution by the way: Put a single species in an empty environment with lots of food available and it will thrive, reproduce and diversify exponentially.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I think we can assume Vagrant was being sarcastic!

God was probably moseying around Africa looking for a good spot for the next Ebola outbreak. But he hasn't created anything except a variety of horrible diseases for some time now, and he wanted to check that he hasn't lost his touch.

He made them like existing fish in the hope that nobody would notice.