The Progression of YEC'ism

[Vance]

This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their literal, "plain reading" interpretation of Scripture is correct. This torch is now being carried by the YEC's (Young Earth Creationists).

The progression:

The world is flat because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, the Earth is spherical, but the universe revolves around it 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 . . .

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

There's no actual argument or logic here - you just mock us.

You should bear in mind that if we YEC's come from the flat-earth/geocentric heritiges, so do you. How do you know that you wouldn't have accepted these models? My problems with evolution are independant from the evidences I see for a young earth.

But anyway, there is nothing here except a mockery of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Vance]

No, it is an attempt to show them the weakness of their position. If their position is based on the literal reading of Scripture, which does not change, then a change in their position means they are actually interpreting that Scripture differently in order to accomodate the science even THEY now have to accept. And this altering of interpretation is exactly what they say we can not do. They say we can not allow the evidence of God's Creation (ie, scientific findings) alter our interpretation of Scripture.

My point is that it is inevitable that YEC'ism will eventually be looked back on as we now look back on Geocentrism: a denial of scientific evidence because it contradicts a preferred reading of Scripture. I can only hope that we do not lose to many souls before this happens.

As for whether I would have accepted Geocentrism, that depends on which time we are talking about it. Before Galileo, I probably would have since I would have been ignorant of any evidence from God's Creation which differed from my interpretation of Scripture. But, after Galileo presented heliocentrism, and as the evidence began coming in, I would have accepted it, just as I accept evolution now.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

My point is that it is inevitable that YEC'ism will eventually be looked back on as we now look back on Geocentrism: a denial of scientific evidence because it contradicts a preferred reading of Scripture. I can only hope that we do not lose to many souls before this happens.

This argument of progression is used in various circumstances by both sides of the debate. You should not ever point to a sequence of events as showing a trend that will certainly come true. For example, the Creationist points out how previous vestigial organs are now known to not be vestigial. The point to this statement is to show that if the current trend continues, all organs will be demonstrated to be not vestigial. That is not a valid argument because it may be that some are, and that we are just discovering which aren't.
The point that the Creaitonist should make is that we cannot tell, either way, whether the organs are vestigial yet - so it's not proof for either side of the debate.
Same can be said of supposed 'junk DNA'.

Again, you cannot liken YEC to Geocentricism and others and assume that just because they were wrong so will YEC theory. It just isn't rational. There is no logical guaruntee that that will occur purely from the points you raised. It is entirely plausible that the YEC position will be vindicated and break the trend of previous models.

Basically, my point was that your post contains no reasonable arguments - just a statement about your expectations. Just as I may expect that it won't rain tomorrow. I may have good reasons for it, but those reasons don't give me sufficient grounds to guaruntee the weather.

 

[gluadys]

Again, you cannot liken YEC to Geocentricism and others and assume that just because they were wrong so will YEC theory. It just isn't rational. There is no logical guaruntee that that will occur purely from the points you raised. It is entirely plausible that the YEC position will be vindicated and break the trend of previous models.

Basically, my point was that your post contains no reasonable arguments - just a statement about your expectations. Just as I may expect that it won't rain tomorrow. I may have good reasons for it, but those reasons don't give me sufficient grounds to guaruntee the weather.

Basically good logic, and I've used it myself in other contexts. You cannot conclude something about a particular solely from a general observation unless you can demonstrate that the general observation actually applies to every single one of the particulars it covers.

So you are right about vestigial organs and may be right about junk DNA. Some of the organs and some of the DNA sequences may be found to be useful. But we cannot conclude they will all be found useful.

But when it comes to YEC, this logic does not apply. Because we are not waiting for the verdict to come in still. It came in a century and a half ago when YEC was falsified. So in this case the trend does apply to all the particulars.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

But when it comes to YEC, this logic does not apply. Because we are not waiting for the verdict to come in still. It came in a century and a half ago when YEC was falsified. So in this case the trend does apply to all the particulars.

I disagree that the case is closed - but that's not the point of the thread.

Vance made an argument against YEC that was based on poor logic. I have demonstrated clearly, I hope, why this line of reasoning was not sufficient - or even relevant.

The reason why I'm bothering to post in this thread at all - there's too much incorrect trite in this debate that I wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. You cannot use this argument as a case against YEC. Darwinism must stand or fall on the veracity of its claims. So must YEC. Therefore, it's irrelevant if previous (possibly or possibly not) related positions have been proven false.
There are simply too many variables to make this a reasonable argument. Vance's argument is vaguely scientific (repeated cases to demonstrate a truth), but without the needed control structures. If Vance can present his argument word by word for proper analysis then it would become clearer.

For example, Vance seems to be claiming that:

1. <x> seems to be taught in Scripture
2. Modern science disagrees with <x>

Therefore:
3. <x> is incorrect

To affirm the second statement, Vance is providing situations where modern science was correct and interpretation of Scripture was not. The problem is, honestly, that there are simply not enough cases and not a good enough control set to determine whether the conclusion is reasonable following the premises. Not to mention the fact that for 1 to be true it has to mean that Scripture is being misinterpreted (unless we simply say that the Scriptures are not correct).

Anyway, getting sleepy, so I'll stop typing. Probably making no sense

 

[Micaiah]

Tyreth, you have answered well.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The big point of the OP is that a changing understanding of the book of works does in fact, for good and convincing reasons modify an interpretation of the book of Words. Each of these watershed moments of Biblical and historical theology were instigated by science in the face of religious opposition that declared that Gods Word must not rest on secular thinking.

 

[Vance]

Well, no, I was approaching it from an "if x, then y" standpoint. I do not think it is inevitable that YEC will be viewed the same as geocentrism because it is also an idea based on interpretation of Scripture and it opposed to science. I believe it will be viewed this way because it is also based on a *faulty* reading of Scripture. But the OP was not in any way meant as evidence to support this conclusion (there are LOTS of other evidences of that).

The point of of the OP is to show basically two things:

- YEC's are inconsistent with their position: they say we should believe in a young earth and disbelieve in evolution because they conflict with a plain reading of Scripture. At each stage of the progression, they come out and insist that their CURRENT position MUST be true, because Scripture requires it to be so. But then they abandon that position for a fall-back position, which undermines their earlier "Scripturally required" assertion. Thus, they are letting scientific discoveries INFORM their beliefs about origins, and at the same time telling us this is exactly what we should not be doing.

- second, the progression shows that they are gradually, and steadily, coming to accept more and more of the evidences of evolutionary theory. Evidences and concepts that they had vehemently denied just a few years before.

The bottom line is that the more we learn about God's Creation, the evidence becomes SO strong that even hardcore YEC organizations have to recognize it, however reluctantly.

 

[gluadys]

I disagree that the case is closed - but that's not the point of the thread.

You cannot use this argument as a case against YEC. Darwinism must stand or fall on the veracity of its claims. So must YEC. Therefore, it's irrelevant if previous (possibly or possibly not) related positions have been proven false.
There are simply too many variables to make this a reasonable argument. Vance's argument is vaguely scientific (repeated cases to demonstrate a truth), but without the needed control structures. If Vance can present his argument word by word for proper analysis then it would become clearer.

For example, Vance seems to be claiming that:

1. <x> seems to be taught in Scripture
2. Modern science disagrees with <x>

Therefore:
3. <x> is incorrect

To affirm the second statement, Vance is providing situations where modern science was correct and interpretation of Scripture was not. The problem is, honestly, that there are simply not enough cases and not a good enough control set to determine whether the conclusion is reasonable following the premises. Not to mention the fact that for 1 to be true it has to mean that Scripture is being misinterpreted (unless we simply say that the Scriptures are not correct).

Anyway, getting sleepy, so I'll stop typing. Probably making no sense

Oh, I agree fully with your logic. Vance needs to show that YEC falls into the same category as the other positions and is not an exception to the trend. Otherwise the point is moot.

I disagree with your conclusion. I think it has been fully shown that YEC is not an exception to the trend.

But, as you say, that is being debated on other threads.

 

[adam149]

This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their literal, "plain reading" interpretation of Scripture is correct. This torch is now being carried by the YEC's (Young Earth Creationists).

The progression:

The world is flat because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

The Bible never taught a flat earth and the Church never believed in a flat earth until it was convinced this was so by non-christians. This is a shameful myth propogated by non-Christians. See:

Russell, J., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9711.html

You should not propogate the desperate myths of sceptics.

Well, OK, the Earth is spherical, but the universe revolves around it because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

The church never taught geocentrism until it was convinced by non-Christians and Scripture categorically does not teach geocentrism. Geocentrism has its origins in the pagan (and evolutionary) philosophy of Aristotle and the greeks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i2/planets.asp
You should not propogate the desperate myths of sceptics.

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.

Depends on your definition of evolution, doesn't it? The proper definition as developed by the evolutionists is as follows:

The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Oxford, UK, Pergamon, p. 157, 1960

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

Well, that and macro has absolutely no basis in reality. There is zero scientific evidence to indicate macro-evolution occurs at all.

Furthermore, what is termed "micro" evolution is actually variation within a kind.

http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

"Micro" evolution is actually merely natural selection, something that creationists proposed 25 years before Darwin ever did.

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

There has never been a single example of macro evolutionary change. If you know of some, I would love to hear it, because I, after six years of studying the scientific literature intensively have yet to find a single one.

(and no, we won't define "kind" either for the same reason),

A proper definition of kinds for you, right here. Enjoy. http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

But the bottom-line is that speciation does *not* occur, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Creationists do not deny speciation and have not for decades. Get with the times. Besides, evolutionists have also not believed in speciation in the past either.

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

Speciation is not evolution, properly defined. Speciation is variation within kind boundaries.

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.

Evolution creates nothing. Creation implies purpose and intelligent direction, evolution is natural selection acting on random errors. There has never been information addition. Random gobbltygook has been added, but not actual information.

And we *mean* it this time . . .

One could, of course, point out:

We know for a fact that the earth is a few million years old.

Ok, we know for a fact that the earth is a billion years old.

Ok, ok, we know for a fact that the earth is 1.75 billion years old.

All right, we know for a fact that the earth is 3 billion years old.

Fine, we know for a fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Or we could also point out:

Evolution occurs through magic little particles moving from body to body (such as Darwin believed)

Ok, evolution is mendelian, as the giraffe stretches its neck up to the trees, its kids inheret this longer neck and after millions of years the giraffe's neck grew longer like it is now.

Ok, evolution acts through natural selection.

Fine, evolution acts through natural selection and mutation over long periods of time.

Ok, evolution proceeds by a reptile laying an egg and a bird hatching out of it.

All right, evolution does not act for long periods of equilibrium which are punctuated by geologically short bursts of rapid evolution.

Ok, ok, evolution occured when aliens seeded the planet and got life started, because darned if we can explain it.

I trust my point is clear.

 

[adam149]

My point is that it is inevitable that YEC'ism will eventually be looked back on as we now look back on Geocentrism: a denial of scientific evidence because it contradicts a preferred reading of Scripture. I can only hope that we do not lose to many souls before this happens.

Even creationists agree that believing in evolution will not send people to hell. The same would apply to our position, assuming that it is wrong.

As a christian I am deeply insulted by the implication that my belief in proper creationism is heresy.

As for whether I would have accepted Geocentrism, that depends on which time we are talking about it. Before Galileo, I probably would have since I would have been ignorant of any evidence from God's Creation which differed from my interpretation of Scripture. But, after Galileo presented heliocentrism, and as the evidence began coming in, I would have accepted it, just as I accept evolution now.

As I point out in my response to your intial post, geocentrism comes from pagan and evolutionary philosophy, not a proper Scriptural interpretation. Using the Galileo incident to contrast creation/evolution doesn't work, since Galileo was not charged with challeneging or denying Scripture, only a Papal decree. The whole incident has been misrepresented.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Bible never taught a flat earth and the Church never believed in a flat earth until it was convinced this was so by non-christians. This is a shameful myth propogated by non-Christians. See:

Russell, J., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library.../FlatEarth.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...2/flatearth.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/cre.../97/cm9711.html

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library.../FlatEarth.html

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

but you are saying that Moses taught a round earth in a heliocentric solar system.
1500 years before these guys.
genesis certainly doesnt transcend its time and teach a copernican universe or does it?

read http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm
for details
-----

 

[Vance]

The issue is not where the belief in geocentrism came from, that is just a red herring by groups like AIG to avoid the embarrassment of the obvious parallels of the two cases. Most people were geocentrists before Galileo came along, it is simply logical based on observation of the world around us. No, the problem was insisting that geocentrism was taught by Scripture and that a heliocentric belief was both contrary to a literal reading of Scripture and proper Christian theology. Yes, this was formalized into a Papal decree, but the decree was the result of a belief that heliocentrism was in direct conflict with Scripture. This they did do, and AIG and others can not avoid the issue by their misleading focus on the origins of the concept.

No one is saying that the Bible teaches Geocentrism. It doesn't. But the Church insisted that it did, not just that scientists believed in it. And a "plain and literal reading" of Scripture can show why they would think that geocentrism was Scripturally based. In fact, there is enough to support geocentrism in Scripture, that I remember reading tracks in the 60's saying that geocentrism is true because the Bible says so. This is exactly the case we have with Young Earth Creationism. Please see my post on the Lesson of Geocentrism.

Adam, the progressions you list are entirely different than those of the YEC model in one very important respect: science expects for theories to develop, is designed to refine and correct and get closer and closer to the truth. YEC'ism, on the other hand, insists at each stage that its current rendition is all truth because it is supported by Scripture. Science rarely, if ever says, "we know for a fact", but that based on the evidence we have today, the most likely answer is X.

The definition you give by Kerkut is a perfect example of misleading YEC presentations. You know that this is not the mainstream definition of evolution, but you quote it anyway, since it is the "evolution" you want to attack.

On the issue of speciation, the fact that YEC's denied that speciation took place for a long time in spite of the evidence is my point exactly. Eventually, they had to admit it, but they did so only after long denying that the evidence was valid.

This is my whole point. As we go along, we see a definite pattern. YEC's will deny the current state of scientific knowledge and will continue to do so until the evidence is just overwhelming, and after denying that what is being presented can possibly be true. Then, when even they have to accept it, they retreat to a fall-back position which they would have denied entirely just a decade before.

Currently their big push is that, while evolutionary processes may create new information, it does not create a net gain of information which could create macro changes. Again, this is just their current position. I think we can fully expect them to retreat to something else within a few years. Maybe falling back to a complete ID theory (which accepts an old earth and the process of evolution, but just says that the evidence of evolution itself shows such design that it could not happen without a divine designer).

YEC is not a heresy, it is just dangerous to the furtherance of the Message of Christianity.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

it amazes me how much mockery exists here. what happened to being open minded? i am a yec, but i don't like the tone of people here who think they are superior when truly they are the ones who are in desperate need of a mirror.

 

[Aeschylus]

The Bible never taught a flat earth and the Church never believed in a flat earth until it was convinced this was so by non-christians. This is a shameful myth propogated by non-Christians. See:

Russell, J., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9711.html

You should not propogate the desperate myths of sceptics.

You're correct, though I wouldn't use sites that have been throughly discredited to back it up.

The fact that the Earth was round was known at least half millenia (approximately) before the birth of Christ by the Greeks (who were non-Christian so you should not pin this fallacy on the non-Christian world in general). The Dark age and medieval Christian church, as the guardians of the knowledge of the ancients, would of known this fact better than anyone else. The Bible certainly does not talk of a flat Earth (though I'll come to that in a minute), infact I believe the Hebrew word for circle (i.e. as the Earth is described in Issaih) is infact identical to the Henbrew word for sphere.

But here's an imortnat point, some did and still do infact interpret the bibel to say, via reading it at a too literal level, that the Earth is flat.

The church never taught geocentrism until it was convinced by non-Christians and Scripture categorically does not teach geocentrism. Geocentrism has its origins in the pagan (and evolutionary) philosophy of Aristotle and the greeks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i2/planets.asp
You should not propogate the desperate myths of sceptics.

The fact that you have to rely on AiG as your sole source for this one shows that you are now on less firm ground.

The church until proven otherwise in the renaissance always held the view of geocentrism, infact no heliocentric models, that I know of, of the solar system existed before that time with the possible exception of one proposed by the Pythagorean school (which was defintely not seriously considered then and it wasn't heliocentrism as we would commonly think of it).

The actual model of the solar system came from the Greeks, but the church pretty much universally beleived that it also had a sound basis in scripture and a litreal reading of the bible, infact there are still people around today that believe that a literal reaidng of the bibel means a geocnetric universe.

One thing that is absolutely laughable is that you describe Greek philosphy as 'evoluitionary'. Evolution is a scientifc theory that was proposed in the nineth century, unless they possessed a Delorian that could exceed 88mph there is no way the Greeks could of known about it. Simalirly geocentrism is unconnected with evoltuion.

Depends on your definition of evolution, doesn't it? The proper definition as developed by the evolutionists is as follows:

Indeed it does depend on your defintion of evolution and that particular definiton is the one commonly stood by some, but it's important to recognize taht the rest of evolutionary theory does not depend on abiogensis and they can be viewed as seperate theories (compare to Einstein's theory of relativty: special relativty does not rest on genral rleativty and the two are often seperated into two different theories).

Well, that and macro has absolutely no basis in reality. There is zero scientific evidence to indicate macro-evolution occurs at all.

Rubbish, rhewre is mountains of evidnece infact the theory of evolution ranks up among the scientifc theories with most evidnece ( and if your interetsed in finding out what that evidnec is you can start no better place than here: http://www.talkorigins.org/). Further if there is exactly zero evidnece for it why is the previaling sceintific view? why is accepted by most including many Christians?

Furthermore, what is termed "micro" evolution is actually variation within a kind.

http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

Nevertheless scientifcally that is a poor definition and we already knownthta variation 'in kind' can lead to populations thta are signifcantly different and do not reproduce (e.g. ring species)

"Micro" evolution is actually merely natural selection, something that creationists proposed 25 years before Darwin ever did.

Yes, some aspects of evolution where discoverd before Darwin, but this is quite often the way. As before Darwin just the vast majority of people were creationists of some form or other, it's very decptive to say that these aspects were discoverd by 'the cretaionists'. For example I could point that elcetromgentism was discovered by 'non-relativists' as an arguemnt against the theory of rlativty, but that's just plain stupid as electroagnetism was discoverd before relativty (and the two theories are deeply connected).

There has never been a single example of macro evolutionary change. If you know of some, I would love to hear it, because I, after six years of studying the scientific literature intensively have yet to find a single one.

I refre you to talkorgins, but I see below your not denying speciation so it's a simple 'no true scotsman' argument.

Creationists do not deny speciation and have not for decades. Get with the times. Besides, evolutionists have also not believed in speciation in the past either.

Speciation is not evolution, properly defined. Speciation is variation within kind boundaries.

In my experinec most cretaionist deny speciation. 'Evolutionsts' have always believd in speciation as speciation is a fundamental part of the theory of evoltuion. An 'evolutionist' who denies speication is liek a heavy metal fan who doesn't like loud music.

Evolution creates nothing. Creation implies purpose and intelligent direction, evolution is natural selection acting on random errors. There has never been information addition. Random gobbltygook has been added, but not actual information.

Define create, even within your lmited dfeintion of natural selction we cna clearly see speices where 'new information' has been added, to suggets otherwise would mean that new species would be less viable than ther parent speices which is not the case.

One could, of course, point out:

We know for a fact that the earth is a few million years old.

Ok, we know for a fact that the earth is a billion years old.

Ok, ok, we know for a fact that the earth is 1.75 billion years old.

All right, we know for a fact that the earth is 3 billion years old.

Fine, we know for a fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Rubbish it's been known for many years the Earth must be billions of years old (infact I believe no-one has seriously proposed a time scale as the one you first proposed since Darwin's time)

Or we could also point out:

Evolution occurs through magic little particles moving from body to body (such as Darwin believed)

I have no way to know if your lying or not as I am unaware of the mechanism Darwin firts proposed and I supsect you are at leats 'bending the truth' as is consistent with the rets of your post, but Darwin did not know the exact mechanism of inheritance, and he may well of beleievd such a thing (though if I wnated to 'I could eaisly decsribe DNA as magic little particles'). Are you saying inheritance does not occur

Ok, evolution is mendelian, as the giraffe stretches its neck up to the trees, its kids inheret this longer neck and after millions of years the giraffe's neck grew longer like it is now.

and over a timescale of billions of years you must place arbiatry barriers to natural selection in order for one 'kind' not become another 'kind'

Ok, evolution acts through natural selection.

yes

Fine, evolution acts through natural selection and mutation over long periods of time.

yes

Ok, evolution proceeds by a reptile laying an egg and a bird hatching out of it.

No. you say you have studied evolution yet you make a ridculoys stemnt like this. what happens is that a partuclar line of reptiles accumalte many changes over the years, we then come along and define these as birds.

All right, evolution does not act for long periods of equilibrium which are punctuated by geologically short bursts of rapid evolution.

Evolution occurs all the time, but radical changes in environment can drastically effect it.

Ok, ok, evolution occured when aliens seeded the planet and got life started, because darned if we can explain it.

Rubbish, this is not a view of evolutionary science.

I trust my point is clear.

Yes, but I finish with my standard piece of advice which I give to creationist and other crackpots: if you wid to disprove an established scientific theory you must be famalir with the theory in the firts place.

 

[Aeschylus]

it amazes me how much mockery exists here. what happened to being open minded? i am a yec, but i don't like the tone of people here who think they are superior when truly they are the ones who are in desperate need of a mirror.

It's wearniess, people should have the common curtesy to find out the basic facts of evoltuion before trying to debate it.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

It's wearniess, people should have the common curtesy to find out the basic facts of evoltuion before trying to debate it.

...you say, just after you demonstrated a lack of knowledge on YEC:

In my experinec most cretaionist deny speciation. 'Evolutionsts' have always believd in speciation as speciation is a fundamental part of the theory of evoltuion. An 'evolutionist' who denies speication is liek a heavy metal fan who doesn't like loud music.

Really? Where does this rare breed of creationist exist? I'm certainly not one. All the Creationists I've met affirm speciation. All the matieral I've read by Creationists affirms it. What's your reference? Some child arguing on the forums who doesn't understand his own beliefs? So often people are surprised when I tell them that YEC teaches one thing or another. Which begs the question - how can they reject YEC when they haven't even taken the time to understand it? You accuse us of not understanding evolution, yet you fail by the very same measuring stick.

Rubbish, rhewre is mountains of evidnece infact the theory of evolution ranks up among the scientifc theories with most evidnece ( and if your interetsed in finding out what that evidnec is you can start no better place than here: http://www.talkorigins.org/). Further if there is exactly zero evidnece for it why is the previaling sceintific view? why is accepted by most including many Christians?

I wouldn't use sites that have been throughly discredited to back it up. The fact that you have to rely on talkorigins as your sole source for this one shows that you are now on less firm ground.

In reference to:

You're correct, though I wouldn't use sites that have been throughly discredited to back it up.
...
The fact that you have to rely on AiG as your sole source for this one shows that you are now on less firm ground.

Honestly - find out what YEC teaches before you try to argue against it. It gets tiring to point out to people that we don't reject speciation, and we don't reject natural selection. What exactly is this hybrid you have invented in your mind thinking AiG and creationists are teaching?

 

[herev]

it amazes me how much mockery exists here. what happened to being open minded? i am a yec, but i don't like the tone of people here who think they are superior when truly they are the ones who are in desperate need of a mirror.

well said--we should all hear it--myself included

 

[gluadys]

The Bible never taught a flat earth and the Church never believed in a flat earth until it was convinced this was so by non-christians. This is a shameful myth propogated by non-Christians.

No, the bible didn't "teach" a flat earth, but the OT authors clearly asssumed it. It is not necessary to teach what most people take for granted. I would agree the church never taught a flat earth because by the time the Church was established all educated people in the Mediterranean area took for granted that the earth is a sphere.

The church never taught geocentrism until it was convinced by non-Christians and Scripture categorically does not teach geocentrism. Geocentrism has its origins in the pagan (and evolutionary) philosophy of Aristotle and the greeks.

The church did not need to teach geocentrism. It was the commonly received concept held by educated people everywhere. Similarly, although the bible does not teach geocentrism, it does assume it. Neither the church nor scripture said anything against geocentrism.

Also note that key to heliocentricity is the motion of the earth around the sun, and several scriptures are fairly clear in saying the earth does not move.

The church had not needed to teach geo-centrism earlier. Its error was to begin teaching geo-centrism when science had already made the concept obsolete.

Depends on your definition of evolution, doesn't it? The proper definition as developed by the evolutionists is as follows:

The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Oxford, UK, Pergamon, p. 157, 1960

How do you know this is the "proper" definition? Isn't that just your opinion? Or Kerkut's opinion? What sort of book is this Implications of Evolution? It sounds like the title a creationist would give to an anti-evolution work.

Is it? Or is this a bona fide (though outdated) scientific text?

The theory of evolution does not actually specify how many times life may have originated. Darwin did hazard a guess of no more than six times in the animal kingdom and a like number in plants.

However, the evidence on evolution leads to the conclusion that all current living organisms descended from a single common ancestor.

Well, that and macro has absolutely no basis in reality. There is zero scientific evidence to indicate macro-evolution occurs at all.

That depends on definition too, doesn't it. As science defines macro-evolution it has occurred and been seen to occur. Speciation is macro-evolution.

Furthermore, what is termed "micro" evolution is actually variation within a kind.

Depends on the definition of "kind". The scientific definition of micro-evolution is variation within a species.

A proper definition of kinds for you, right here. Enjoy. http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

This is a definition? The author notes correctly that:

The implication of hybridization is a one-way street, however. Hybridization is an indicator of two organism’s belonging to the same original kind. It does not necessarily follow that the inability of two organisms to hybridize indicates that they are not of the same kind.

But the sections on "discontinuity systematics" and "baraminology" don't propose any criteria for determining when species are not related.

How can one possibly know where "variation within the kind" stops if one has no idea what the boundary of a kind looks like?

I would also like to see this quote from Schwabe and Warr in context.

Schwabe and Warr also point out that if the concept of monophyletic evolution is abandoned, all conclusions regarding the common relatedness of molecules or species is called into doubt, and one is forced to discard the notion that similarities implicitly demonstrate common descent (Schwabe and Warr, 1984).

True enough, but what else did they say? Sounds suspiciously like a mined quote.

Speciation is not evolution, properly defined. Speciation is variation within kind boundaries.

Well, the "proper" definition from Kerkut does not mention either species or kinds, so why is speciation not evolution? In fact, by scientific definition, speciation is the end point of evolution, with a lot of evolution happening within the species before the point of speciation is reached. And without a definition of "kind" or "kind boundaries" the rest of the definition is moot.

This is just another creationist example of saying, "Evolution is not evolution."

Evolution creates nothing. Creation implies purpose and intelligent direction, evolution is natural selection acting on random errors.

Of course, for theistic evolutionists, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive terms. Evolution is a scientific description of creation. Creation is the theological understanding of evolution.

Nor do I accept the description of a genetic mutation as a "random error". Would a mutation commanded by God be an error? Would scientists be able to discriminate between a mutation commanded by God and a naturally occurring random one? Would even a naturally occurring random mutation necessarily be an error? or is it just a change? "Mutation" after all, simply means "change".

There has never been information addition. Random gobbltygook has been added, but not actual information.

How do you define information? How do you measure it? How do you determine than no "actual information" has been added?