Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

...but not with a website that can't answer back.You have too many things there anyway and they don'be belong in this thread.If you actually think that anything posted on those sites will stand up to real scrutiny then please reword that part as you understand it and refer to the site as a supply of more detail. If you do this you will have to be prepared to defend it yourself using any resources you can find.

i really don't get how you can say this,when schraf is asking you how you came to your reasonable reasoning for an designer.
you are just trying to change the subject without answering the questionas for why people feel the conclusion for natural causes are more plausable, its because we have evidence of this, wheres the evidence for the designer? but you did no such thing. like people have said, you are trying to rationalize your beliefs, such as by trying to use reason to validate supernatureal causeswhy is the supernatual a better answer?

I agree.BUT.......I do get amazed at all the very very *small* things some want to debate over.LOL I simply made a minor correction that really wasnt much of an opinion but a fact.People need to learn the difference between a factual report (free of spin)and a comment that is reflective of ones opinion.I seen people spend 30+ posts debating whether a single sentence (another poster made) meant one nuanced variation and stretch of the English language or another.I have seen people openly wish that there were more Creationists to debate here.In older posts I have read and newer ones.I cant help but offer people suggestions when I find myself in "debates" over non-opinionated and generally skinny posts I make.I know its rude to give advice when you arent asked.However...The fact that you are asking a non-Creationist to defend Creationism seems to me part of the problem.If I made a post based on an AIG article, then it would be "spam".I would be trying to generate discussion on an issue Im not a partisan on.And I wouldnt participate much.Instead,I find myself dragged into some "debate" over Creationism time and time again for just rearing my head.Honestly, I want to see everybody happy here.I hate to crap on peoples parade or be a big sour-pus.I just have no dog in this fight.But I really feel for people when they lament the fact that they cant find Creationists to debate.Heck,if I were you guys, I would give Creationism a crutch.Quote their articles then respond to them,again heck...even help nudge on counter-arguments(ie put words in their mouths)to jump-start participants.Its not like anybodys hunger for debate isnt ALREADY putting word in others mouths (like me).I like reading the discussion here, but many possible (lurking)Creationist debaters will get lost in-between the petty stuff tht fills 90% of posts in threads.Im not saying this place is substance free.To the contrary, it is one of the most detailed places around (especially compared to other sites).But, there needs to be some way to have threads that respond to specific Creationist articles (the more up to date one, not the same rehashed old issues), and are free of boastful posts, 1 liners ,petty side discussion (like this), insluts , fishing expeditions , 30+ post blather fests in-between detailed discussion, etc.Honestly, I wouldnt be giving me 2 cents if not for the obvious debate-harvesting attempt that is performed on anybody who even smells like a Christian and (gasp) a Creationist.There are more fertile fields to graze.

My point was that the Ark and Noahs Flood is the one reason why "The Species/Kinds" issue is such an important one to YECs.A YEC must support the branching of new species POST-Creation due to the limited Ark space and other issues involved related to the "millions of species issue".While that is the ultimate motive....I also,however think that DNA is another reason they support such a position.They honestly seem to make a powerful case that all the variation(evolution) we see is minor and caused by a loss of information not an addition of info.I watched a debate with Carl Wieland where he actually helped the Evolutionist out and suggested (when the evolutionist couldnt respond very good to the "we only see loss of information" issue)something like "I actually may disagree with my Creationist friends somewhat and point out that there MAY infact be *one* case where there is possible addition of genetic information".But he didnt have time to say what it was.The Fossil and geology issues I linked to ties in.

It isn't very likely that there is anything at AIG or ICR (or the far worse sites) that hasn't been debated here a number of times. Nothing stands up to the detailed reasoning that you think is nit-picking.What you are seeing is a pale imitation of how scientists operate. Nothing is left un-nit-picked.

They make a flimsy case based on rhetoric, the use of tactical vagueness (a refusal to define their terms), and misrepresentation.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Nice quote! Mind if I steal it for use later?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

Nice quote! Mind if I steal it for use later?

---

Be my guest, and thanks!

After discussing the mutation and natural selection Gould wrote

quote:

---

But no comparable argument exists for any a priori expectation that the analogous variation (among species within a clade) made available for species selection should also be random with respect to the direction of a trend. Species do not discourge drives among their parts (organisms), while organisms usually do suppress directional variation at lower levels (because the proliferative “interests” of individual genes and cell lineages generally run counter to the adaptive needs of organisms). Moreover, the adaptive features of organisms often confer benefits upon the species as well -as when species live longer because their well-designed organisms prevail in competition. Therefore, we cannot defend an a priori basis for asserting randomness in the variation that serves as raw material for species selection.

---

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory p 732

---

I took it that Gladyshev’s slight declination From creationism (as it was first introduced on EVC) indicated a sense in which there may in fact be such an expectation.
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?I used to just talk about “reverse information flow” in this regard
EvC Forum: Stanley Miller debunked?
http://EvC Forum: When micro = macro ... -->EvC Forum: When micro = macro ...
http://EvC Forum: Mendel wasn't entirely right -->EvC Forum: Mendel wasn't entirely right
http://EvC Forum: How can evolution explain body symmetry? -->EvC Forum: How can evolution explain body symmetry?
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
http://EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially? -->EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially?But with respect to the issue of Fisher’s potential error within the concepts of “quality” and “quantity” dependent on Gould's writing and thus speaking for Darwinism as per Adequate's italics etc., it could be suggested that this “reverse information flow” need not be restricted theoretically to the population or deme but could come from the “species” level as well where Gould, not me nor Kant wrote "a priori". This is why it will become more important that Will Provine ignored my attempts to inform him about this work. Extant monohierarchies on the species level can “discourge” organisms but to say this one must speak say both for lipids and nucleic acids as one. The quality of Gladshev’s writing in English did not explicitly make this homogeneity. I am coming much closer.Do you, Dr. Adequate still want me to read for you the passages in Gould’s tome that speak to “diversity” and “Darwinism” that are not dependent on aspects of my own contributions?This would involve his discussion of Darwin on diversity, Fisher on organismal rate changes and Gould’s changing ideas about macroevolution over time.Edited by Brad McFall, : redirection for the good Dr.

when the person you debate, evades, claims things that they are unwilling to back up, but are willing to claim as truth, it makes it hard to debate.
the fact remains that many people make statements they never,ever, bother to think about. they never decide or process why they believe the things they do.
the reason you get targeted is you make statements that something is right without backing it up, it helps people if they can at least see what you base your views onwe lament the creationists because only a few are willing to debate, most just want people to hear them preach and agree with them without any questions. fewer creationists are willing to allow that they could be wrong or at least that they arn't looking at thier text right

I just want you to answer the question. How does observing speciation contradict the theory of evolution?

If people here dont know the basic fact, by now, that YEC's (those that base it on the YEC scienific model, not layperson YEC's) believe in significant diversification of species then maybe I should make you back up every other word in each of your posts.Give me the complete etymology of every last word you typed in message #130 so I can be sure that you have every last detail correct in you basic statement.Let me repeat what I said that caused such controversy.I said that every significant Creationist (specifically YEC's)opposes Intelligent Design teaching requirments.I was refering to those who have scientific credentials (including but not limited to AIG and by extension I implied ICR)plus I threw in the opinions of Hovind and Baugh as well since they are prominent YEC's though they have no degrees.I linked to AnwsersInGenesis since they have about 20 PhD's writing for them( and almost all the rest of open YECs with PhDs generally write for ICR, but it is far fewer)here is the link again (VERY IMPORTANT...get a reading ..it is THE thing to read in this thread) Misrepresented (Sigh) Time and Time Again | Answers in Genesis Future responces should be on the substance of the AIG position and its implication for teaching standards. (praying)I also mentioned the opposition of the 2 most prominent OEC's Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.Here is their BiographyPage not found - Reasons to BelieveHere is Hugh Ross discussing I.D. and school requirments
Page not found - Reasons to BelieveHere is a link to a site trashing Fuz Rana and Creationists of all types.It also links to a Christian article discussing Rhana's position.I cant find the actual text of Rhana's announcment though. I seem to remember reading it 4 or 5 months ago whn it was fresh.Page not found · GitHub PagesMaybe we need to move past the petty details of how exactly I worded my initial post.I will,however, make a Mea Culpa that hopefully makes the nit pickers happy once and for all (till I make another basic post at midnight saying "its dark outside" without full scientific backing and documentation).I DO ADMIT that there may be a YEC out there that wants Intelligent Design taught,and maybe would even want teachers to be forced to do so.I would imagine that they wouldnt know much about the general YEC Creation Model though.I will even admit that there could be, and surely are,plenty of OECs who support such a position.OEC=Progressive Creationism generally except Gap Theory folks.Im sure several Theistic Evolutionists would.I also admit that the isolated school board decisions, in the odd town here and there,have a VERY confused issue with very confused players in the debate.And very confused reporting on WHO exactly supports (and to a lesser extent, who opposes)the I.D. teaching requirements.However, since YEC's are the subject, I will just say that most strongly oppose requiring teachers to teach any form of Creationism out of fear that it will only lead to a teacher(the non-Creationists types especially anti-Bible types)having a platform for trashing the Bible which would clearly be made a subject of discussion.Now.Are we finally o.k. after 30+ posts?Can we get to the meat and bones RESULTS (imagined results since the current standards arent exactly 100% identical to their preferences) of the larger YEC position (lets use AIG as the general reps) on Science classroom standards?Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I question your use of the words "the" and "scientific". Percival William Davis is an American author, a young earth creationist, and activist in the intelligent design movement.According to his author biography, Davis received a bachelor of arts in zoology from DePauw University, master of arts in zoology from Columbia University, Master's degree at Columbia University and the University of South Florida in zoology, ecology and physiology. He was a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida beginning in 1968.The term "intelligent design" came into general usage following the publishing of a 1989 book called Of Pandas and People co-authored by Davis and Dean H. Kenyon.... Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966 he became Assistant Professor at San Francisco State University until 1969.(Facts from Wikipedia)These are the people who are ignorant of "the" YEC position, eh?

I thought the difference between us was more like what you just asked.We misunderstood each other. It is not *necessarily* a "contradiction" OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION to "observe" speciation or neontologically speculate about it. It is one thing to be critical of evolutionary theory, whether from within(George Oster vs Maynard Smith etc.) or without(Creationism)and another to "deny" or claim logical "contradictions." It is also possible to move from within an overly critical position outside the structure of evolutionary theory (based on a rejection of "geometry" of speciation) to an unconditioned point within the difference of opinion of particular evolutionary biologists. I do not know how many people explictly move about this way.I was only trying to indicate that there is an issue or a problem or a conundrum and possibly a new logical instruction for DARWIN's Darwinism (and I used Gould's work to speak for that) once the working out of "diversification" arises in one's thought about biological form-making and translation in space. Diversification involves splitting and ... continuance...I thought the question for you was how ICR could claim that both diversification (no matter the obsevation) and Darwinism were suspect, not that relating an observation within a species' changes not only changes but quite strongly %invalidates% common ancestry as the meaning of similarity among forms. I was never trying to answer the latter half of this sentence. Sorry for trying to stop running water in the process.Now if you want to TRY to see how observing speciation might "contradict" the theory of evolution itself then to do so would probably involve a long and drawn further-in adumbration about current issues of A and not not-A or B where A and B were said to have been "homology" and "analogy", but one would have to relate this not only TO evo-devo but beyond and I am not ready to undertake such a discussion as I rather would try to trickle down to Chomsky's ideas rather than Bertrand Russell no matter the economic about language itself not forming with Wittgenstein or Gould's blue butterfly Russian writer etc.The speculation that this thread opened with was as to if ID aside, creationist mights be returning to Yecishes "after the" full court press. As far as the logic involved, I would think that ICR was already headed in this direction, with its GENE project regardless of the outcome of ID.I have a powerpoint going over ICR's future project projections currently under the name "businespeech.ppt" at
http://aexion.org/product.aspxIt is simply a cut and paste of an ICR presentation.

There is no difference. No, I am saying there is no difference. I do not see it that way. Design is part of evolution. How large a part we do not know. These are very accurate scientific statements. Evolution is a process of adaptation...this whole process may in fact be a learning process. Neither of these are scientific statements. You have drawn mental boundaries where they do not necessarily exist. shortened link
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/Cell_bio/cell_bio.html
Top Health News and Guidance for the 50+
http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/millhillessays/1996/morphgen.htmTry googling "how cells learn" http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/virus/page.html
Error
These links simply show how incomplete our knowledge is in this area.
Is there a line? If we are to look scientifically at the whole process then we must realise we are not the benchmark.We are but a step in the process. The earth is not the center of the universe as surely as we are not. Thinking so does not make it so and is not scientific. It is philosophy of a purely scientific nature. You have placed a boundary on what it means to learn. Nature is what it is. Our mistake is placing limits upon a process we are a product of. One needs to consider the entire process as a whole. In doing so, where does intelligence begin? Has it always been present in some form? These are scienctific questions. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : typo'sEdited by 2ice_baked_taters, : Romoved bad link