Creation is a fact so is evolution

[chaoschristian]

Maybe that's why I'm not a TE yet, I haven't had my equilibrium puctuated yet.

No, you're not TE yet because you haven't started selecting 'OTHER' as the option of choice on polls here in the forum.

Just ask laptoppop. He's already begun the journey!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

When ever the fact of observed speciation comes up YEC's turn to a variety of excuses.

One it to claim that, since many of the examples come from polyploid speciation in plants, all the examples are invalid.

My personal favorite it to admit that speciation occurs, but then claim that speciation is not evolution!

Another approach is to admit the speciation, but then claim that it is in fact micro evolution and not macro evolution - which would invovle changes amonst( the never defined) "kinds".


And now we have this claim that the definition of speciation used is not "strong " enough .

So which is it, and why can't YEC's be consistant?
Is it that the speciation is not valid because you don't like some of the examples?
Is it that speciation is not evolution?
Is it that speciation is micro evolution, but not macro?
Is it that the definition of speciation used was somehow inadequate?
Are there other reasons to dismiss observed speciation?


What is the most accurate criticism?

 

[vossler]

No, you're not TE yet because you haven't started selecting 'OTHER' as the option of choice on polls here in the forum.

So that's what it means to step on over to the 'other side'.

 

[Mallon]

Another approach is to admit the speciation, but then claim that it is in fact micro evolution and not macro evolution - which would invovle changes amonst( the never defined) "kinds".

Q: What is macroevolution?
YEC: Evolution between "kinds."

Q: What is a "kind"?
YEC: The most inclusive level at which macroevolution doesn't occur.

'Round and 'round we go!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This thread seems to be dead.