The Progression of YEC'ism

[Aeschylus]

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



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.

1) I'm sorry but it is clear many cretaionists do not believe speciation occurs.

New Earth creationists form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) when interpreted literally.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added

http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

2) there is no sceintifc theory of creationism. Creationism is wide range of theological views.

3) Evolution iks an established scientifc theory, if you wish to disprove it then the onus is on you to find out about it, not for everyone to find out about your own crackpot theories.

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.

Pleae grow up, talkorigins is a respected resource, ICR and AiG are not.

In reference to:

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?

See above.

 

[herev]

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

While I'm sure you have NOT been guilty of doing it, welcome to the nightmare of theistic evolutionists--we hear it all the time from creationists about our beliefs

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

1) I'm sorry but it is clear many cretaionists do not believe speciation occurs.

[/font]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

Hardly an authoritative source. Why don't you ask a creationist what they believe?

http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

Dr. Dino didn't seem to be saying that speciation does not occur. His argument, for better or for worse, is that mutations never lead to new species. That is an entirely different thing altogether. Seriously. This is a central part of the creationist model.

Edit: Dr. Dino says in that same page:

For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not.

Here he's saying that wolves and dogs are different species that came from the same ancestor - and he's talking under the creationist model! There you have absolute proof that Dr. Dino does not reject speciation.

2) there is no sceintifc theory of creationism. Creationism is wide range of theological views.

What does this have to do with your misunderstanding about Creationists and speciation?

3) Evolution iks an established scientifc theory, if you wish to disprove it then the onus is on you to find out about it, not for everyone to find out about your own crackpot theories.

In a Christian forum, I would expect courtesy from Christians.
A. This is not a crackpot theory
B. You are here choosing to criticize YEC, therefore the onus is on you to know what you are disagreeing with. If you really think that you don't have to bother learning it, then don't bother raising criticisms with it.

That's like me saying to someone else, "Oh yeah? Well your beliefs are wrong because you believe that kettles have 3 handles!" to which that person responds, "What on earth are you talking about? We've never said anything about kettles or how many handles they have!". So, you do have a responsibility to understand that which you criticise.

Pleae grow up, talkorigins is a respected resource, ICR and AiG are not.

A pointless and irrational argument because you are trying to insult me to win the point, and you made a claim about respect for a source - respect does not guaruntee the accuracy of such a source. ie, your claim is unrelated to the point you try to prove.

You would expect that if <x> is the dominant theory of the day, and <y> is excluded by <x>, that any source promoting <y> would automatically not be trusted by those who teach <x>. So, this says nothing about the veracity of the claims on either site. You appeal to popularity and give no good reasons. That's all my point was - that you had no grounds for rejecting AiG references that couldn't be used for rejecting talkorigins. During Galileo's day, one could easily call books on the ptolemaic model "reputable", "respected", and "trustworthy", and the majority would agree and move on. Yet it was wrong.

Now here is another AiG link - because whether or not you believe it is a reputable source, it is at the very least representative for a majority of YEC's. And here are a list of articles teaching that speciation occurs. I provide them purely to demonstrate why you are wrong in believing that creationists reject speciation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp
A more in depth look:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-215.htm

I almost feel like you should apologise for mocking me when you don't understand our position. I try my best not to insult those I disagree with, because it makes me look like a larger fool if I'm wrong, and makes it harder to admit it.

 

[Aeschylus]

Hardly an authoritative source. Why don't you ask a creationist what they believe?



Dr. Dino didn't seem to be saying that speciation does not occur. His argument, for better or for worse, is that mutations never lead to new species. That is an entirely different thing altogether. Seriously. This is a central part of the creationist model.

How can speciation occur without muttations, that is an impossibi

Edit: Dr. Dino says in that same page:


Here he's saying that wolves and dogs are different species that came from the same ancestor - and he's talking under the creationist model! There you have absolute proof that Dr. Dino does not reject speciation.



What does this have to do with your misunderstanding about Creationists and speciation?[/quote]
Well here's another one from ICR:

No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:
​

​

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2
​

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
​

​

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3​

​

​

Or another creationist site that claims that the 'first members' of a species would be unable to reproduce:​

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html​

It is Clear that many creationists do not believe in speciation and this has been my experince of creationists which is what I said in the first place.​

In a Christian forum, I would expect courtesy from Christians.
A. This is not a crackpot theory
B. You are here choosing to criticize YEC, therefore the onus is on you to know what you are disagreeing with. If you really think that you don't have to bother learning it, then don't bother raising criticisms with it.

A It is a crackpot theory, as someone who has and is stillmstudying physics to a reaosnably advanced level, it makes me alugh at the sheer ignorance of claims like evolution contravenes the second law of thermodynamics, a claim that I can see is in the ICR link above.

That's like me saying to someone else, "Oh yeah? Well your beliefs are wrong because you believe that kettles have 3 handles!" to which that person responds, "What on earth are you talking about? We've never said anything about kettles or how many handles they have!". So, you do have a responsibility to understand that which you criticise.

Did I see that you did not believe in speciation? No I said that in my experince creationist did not believe in speciation which was in response to the ludricous claim that at one point 'evolutionists' did not believe in speciation.

A pointless and irrational argument because you are trying to insult me to win the point, and you made a claim about respect for a source - respect does not guaruntee the accuracy of such a source. ie, your claim is unrelated to the point you try to prove.

ICR and AiG make ludrioucs claims on thermodynamics and other areas of physics that I am very famalir with (the last link, in partciualr made me chuckle):

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/antimatter.asp

You cannot in all seriousness cite these as serious sources of scientific information.

You would expect that if <x> is the dominant theory of the day, and <y> is excluded by <x>, that any source promoting <y> would automatically not be trusted by those who teach <x>. So, this says nothing about the veracity of the claims on either site. You appeal to popularity and give no good reasons. That's all my point was - that you had no grounds for rejecting AiG references that couldn't be used for rejecting talkorigins. During Galileo's day, one could easily call books on the ptolemaic model "reputable", "respected", and "trustworthy", and the majority would agree and move on. Yet it was wrong.

If you have famlairity with the scientifc process you would know why I say this. Evolution, big bang theory, relativty, the standard model, etc. are our best models in ceratin areas of sceince and to disprove them you must find a terminal redundancy in them. But all these theories have existed for decadees and many fine minds have looked at them yet no terminal redundancy has been found in any of them. It's highly, unlikely, though not 100% impossible (no theory can be regarded as 100% proven) that there is a terminal redundancy in any one of these theories, but if there is it is very, very, non-obvious and can only be found by someone with an intirctae knowledge of the theory.

Now here is another AiG link - because whether or not you believe it is a reputable source, it is at the very least representative for a majority of YEC's. And here are a list of articles teaching that speciation occurs. I provide them purely to demonstrate why you are wrong in believing that creationists reject speciation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp
A more in depth look:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-215.htm

I almost feel like you should apologise for mocking me when you don't understand our position. I try my best not to insult those I disagree with, because it makes me look like a larger fool if I'm wrong, and makes it harder to admit it.

As I said it is my experince that creationist do reject speciation.

 

[Vance]

YEC organizations used to argue vehemently that speciation does not occur, and that the whole concept of speciation was contrary to Scripture. Most have changed their position on this as the evidence from science keeps pouring in. Thus, they have allowed the evidence from science to inform their interpretation of Scripture, which is the one thing they argue Christians can never do, since literal is literal, plain reading is plain reading. They say TE's are wrong to allow scientific evidence of God's Creation alter or inform how we read Scripture, yet when they do it (very quietly), it must be something different.