The Progression of YEC'ism

I posted this earlier, but I see now that it needs to be updated to add in the new twists. This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their interpretation of Scripture is correct. This torch is now being carried by the YEC's.

The progression:

The universe revolves around the Earth because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, so the Earth revolves around the Sun, but evolution is a lie, it simply doesn't happen, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, evolution happens, but only micro evoution, not macro, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, we don't want to argue about "macro" v. "micro" because every time we define "macro" evolution, someone eventually proves that it does happen (and no, we won't define "kind" either for the same reason), But the bottom-line is that speciation does *not* occur, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, speciation does occur, but this evolution never creates any "new information", because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, so evolution does create "new information", but that new information must always results in a net loss of total information, never a net gain, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

And we *mean* it this time . . .

Yes, I too have wondered about this progression of logic. The problem with such specific beliefs such as young earth creationism is that they directly equate their faith with their interpretation of faith.

If something is proven wrong by these standards, the likely answer in our religion is that it is not the bible that is wrong, but is instead our interpretation of the bible is wrong.

However, with such 'inerrant' beliefs found in young earth creationism, the line between speculation and what is actually written becomes blurred. It is not as though this does not occur in religion, but with such beliefs I have seen such a progression to occur at a much faster rate as their beliefs must constantly face the strain of finding an explaination for a new proven fact which was believed to not be true at all for it contridicts the bible.

Creationism is evolving.....

Sorry, couldn't resist.....

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

Actually, that was only meant as a joke, but it illustrates evolution quite well...

Creationist arguments can be viewed like species - imagine them as a load of different rabbits, sharing an environment with foxes (evolutionary theory).

Those which are most vulnerable to predation by the foxes (moon dust, human/dino footprints and other ancient PRATTS) are rarely seen - going extinct even. They survive in environments (fundy churches) where there are no foxes, but here they do not.

Occasionally a new species (say short period comets) appears and does quite well briefly because it's new to the foxes. But the foxes also evolve their behaviour (do some research) and are then able to predate the short period comet rabbits using the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.

So the rabbits evolve a new defence - "no new information!". And so it goes on.

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

To further the analogy, we can imagine the rabbits destroying their own environment (making it insupportable for other rodents (Christians)) as their numbers grow, with the result that those who support rodents in general come to hope that the rabbits eventually become extinct.

I think the reason YEC's views change is because the better technology we have the more evidence comes forth(space ships, etc...).

The only Evolution that happens is Micro evolution and that is still not changing a Dog into a Cat.

__________________

You are 100% right, a dog will never change into a cat. Good thing for evolutionary theory that it never says that this could possibly happen! In fact, evolutionary theory would agree with you that this is an absolute impossibility.

Now, dogs and cats coming from a mutual ancestor (which was neither dog nor cat, but something which is now long since extinct), that is something evolution DOES say likely happened.

Evolution also say everthing came from a rock................

Jeremiah 2:26-27

__________________

Can you point us to a trusted, scientific, evolutionary source that states this? Even if this was true, doesn't the bible say we came from dirt?

No, Hovind says evolution says everything came from a rock.

If you wish to debate evolution, you are going to have to learn it's basic principals. You will NEVER get the truth about its basic principals from Hovind. Please turn from that evil.

Really, it is a bit amazing that someone can not only claim to disagree with something they have not even learned about, but actually attempt to debate its merits. It is no coincidence that almost all of those who still deny evolution are those who don't understand it (or those who DO understand it, but can make a quick buck by denying it in a plausible and entertaining fashion fit the those who don't understand it).