Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

quote:

---

I came to what a believe is a reasonable opinion or conclusion through reason,

---

This is doublespeak, really;"I reached a reasonable conclusion using reasoning."Can you translate into a formal logical structure your "reasoning" of how your lack of knowledge of a natural origin of consciousness, morality, and aesthetics lead to your conclusion of a supernatural, God-like Intelligent Designer?If you try, I think you will see how it falls apart and the fact that you are not using "pure reason" will become very obvious to you.What is your starting premise?As far as I can tell, you are starting out with an unwarranted, rather huge assumption.Remember, I'm not saying that you can't believe what you want to believe, but you have not given me any explanation that warrants acceptance of your "pure reason" claim.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

I'll try briefly once more. I can accept that all physical life forms that we know evolved from the first single cell creatures on this planet. Biology and evolution cannot go further back than that just as cosmologists can't go back any earlier than a planck time after the big bang.Why did the BB happen and why did the first cell exist. There are two ways of dealing with the question. One can look at all the information that is available and decide whether it is from random chance through a naturalistic process or that there is an external intelligence involved. Either of these answers can be deduced through reason. The other option of course is to cop out and say that because the information isn't conclusive, that they can't form an opinion and will just sit on the fence.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

OK, I don't have any idea why you are now bringing up the Big Bang, nor Abiogenesis.Neither have anything to do with what we have been discussing.I have been trying to remain very narrowly focused on your claim that you used "reason alone" to conclude that human consciousness, morality, and aesthetics do not have a natural origin, and furthermore you used "reason alone" to conclude that a supernatural, God-like Intelligent Designer exists.What I'd really like is for you to do what I asked:Can you translate into a formal logical structure your "reasoning" of how your lack of knowledge of a natural origin of consciousness, morality, and aesthetics lead to your conclusion of a supernatural, God-like Intelligent Designer?

First off the question that you phrase could be asked of anyone who comes to the conclusion that the natural is all there is. >How would your lack of knowledge of a supernatural origin of consciousness etc lead you to assume that everything has a naturalist explanation?<I've done what you ask, but you don't accept my explanation as being reasonable. That's fine.

I remember reading an article about new plant species on their site.The article clearly indicated that they believe that many new plant species came into being by "loss of genetic information".ICR and Anwsers In Genesis are almost(if not) identicle in basic beliefs.There was an interesting article(which I cant find) about 2 species of plants coming together into 1 new hybrid specie.Their point was that the "kind" the 2 seperate species were from (from creation)split into seperate species then the new hybrid was a result of the 2 species coming back together, or forming a newer variety.I cant find it but here are some links (I used their search engine) showing articles(10 per page)related to speciation.Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research
There is new evidence that members of some species (including the famous peppered moth) may actually "choose" environments suitable for their trait combinations.6 If "habitat choice" behavior were created (and did not have to originate by time, chance, and random mutations!), it would reduce the genetic burden that results when only one trait expression is "fittest," and it would also greatly accelerate the process of diversification within species.Research and new discoveries have made it increasingly easy for creationists to account for phenomenal species diversification within short periods of time. These same discoveries have only magnified problems in orthodox neo-Darwinian thinking. It is encouraging, but not surprising, therefore, that an increasing number of students and professionals in science are accepting the creation model as the more logical inference from scientific observations and principles. shortened linkanother long linkNew Animal Species | The Institute for Creation ResearchI didnt read too many(will later) but I can assure you that any "scientific" YEC will believe in rapid speciation.Here are sample article titles (in links above)On the Changing Defintion of the Term "Species" (#211)Species --?? A Most Elusive Subject (#200304)Im sure most here understand the concept, but in short the YEC position is that created "kinds" had a HUGE amount of genetic data (picture the genetic data for every dog breed being present in a single proto-dog which also happens to have wolve,coyote, fox , etc. genetic data)which then "evolved" by becoming isolated from one another and then having pups which survived in their environment by selecting certain genetic features.The YEC view is that only a certain genetic strain would survive in various environments and all the rest would die out.The "dead dogs" would select out (erase or severely reduce) all the genetic variety.YECs believe all cases of evolution are due to a loss of genetic data.They claim that observation has shown just that and only that.I dunno about the larger issue.On to the petty issue.......But I do know that the accusation that *I* selected (artifical or natural...j/k) my "tactic" and "declared that"... my "own particular pick-n-mix of creationist nonsense" based on the The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research example hypothesied has been scientifically falsified based on the evidence.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

So, the ICR can't even tell one consistent story.So their website claims both that diversification of species exists and is a problem for Darwinism (very funny, I'm not surprised they don't supply any reasoning) and that "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."And you pays your money, and you takes your choice.Their own propaganda material is split half-and-half. You picked the version that suited you. If you don't know what it means to falsify a hypothesis, I suggest that you learn before employing the term.My claim that different creationists have different views on the subject would not, of course, be falsified by the observation that some of them have similar views.Any more than the claim that humans come in two sexes would be falsified by observing that several of them were men.Sheesh, you guys and logic ...The fact that you have declared your version to be Real Proper Creationism is evident from your posts.The fact that you were wrong about the ICR is merely the icing on your humble pie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First off the question that you phrase could be asked of anyone who comes to the conclusion that the natural is all there is. >How would your lack of knowledge of a supernatural origin of consciousness etc lead you to assume that everything has a naturalist explanation?<

---

But I'm not claiming that, so it is irrelevant for this conversation.

quote:

---

I've done what you ask, but you don't accept my explanation as being reasonable. That's fine.

---

You have done no such thing!You have told me that you have "reasoned" but that's all you've done. You haven't SHOWN me the logical steps you took to arrive at your conclusion.What is your starting premise?

Diversification can be a "Darwinian" problem (assuming one assumes that Gould can "speak" for "Darwinism") at Gould's question about Fisher's reason for rejecting the relation of physical thermodynamics and Darwinian biology.Gould ASKED,

quote:

---

Do these differences between physical thermodynamics and Darwinian biology then rank as exceptions or invalidations?

---

He was referring to :

quote:

---

Consider the first three exceptions listed by Fisher (1930, p37):
1. The systems considered in thermodynamics are permanent; species on the contrary are liable to extinction, although biological improvement must be expected to occur up to the end of their existence.
2. Fitness, although measured by a uniform method, is qualitatively different for every different for every different organism, whereas entropy, like temperature, is taken to have the same meaning for all physical systems.
3.Fitness may be increased or decreased by changes in the environment, without reacting quantitatively upon the environment.

---

This question is not being asked as to if Darwinian biology and the first installment the West saw of "Darwinian evolution" could be wrong or "invalid" but if the standard Darwinism that Gould associates with adaptational functionality and so-called "Darwinian algorithm" could be invalidated through thorough answers to content and context of these Fisherian points. He wants to be able to ask if future answers to them might not simply provide "exceptions" to current growths of biological thought rather than out right dismissals.A certain way that these points are responded to however can show that diversification of species IS a problem within this question for Darwinism. Some of the people I KNOW of at ICR are very sharp. They may even have this in mind. I do not know. They may also be writing and working as Fisher did, by elimination. I do not know.Death of an individual and death of a species are TWO possibly different things for Gould yet Gould insists that he has met Fisher's argument against species selection. I suspect that the Fisherian "billardball" that Gould merely smoothes to achieve his structure is actually divided by a better than Boltzman division of the material within a reproductive continuum dividable by macrothermodyanmics. There are some issues in physics tha could show me to a little too enthusiastic about the paternity I am suggesting but if my experience with the biological literature is any indication I do not think I will have to deal with errors of my own attempts at physical manifestations. Gould used the word "atom" at this point, noting that we still use the word even though nuclear power divided it. He instead argues "Darwinism" for the Fisher billiard ball and alternatives in terms of a "facet" on the Galton polyhedron. At first I thought that his use of Galton would carry the difference of RNAs but I now read Gould to the affect that different Boltzmann-like divisions of particles' wholes is a SPLIT billiard ball rather than a structured multihedral(crystal like) rolling object.After Gould copies these 1930 points of Fisher he writes,

quote:

---

But what do these exceptions express in ordinary biological parlance? Contingency, individuality, and interaction, for the three points respectively. Could anyone have presented a better list of peculiarly biological properties that make organisms and their history so intrinsically unlike simpler physical systems that operate by timeless and general laws? Do these differences between physical thermodynamics and Darwinian biology then rank as exceptions or invalidations.?

---

While "temperature" and "entropy" have the same meaning for all physical systems (hierarchical thermodynamics) the THERMOSTAT
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/hetlsa/index.htm
can be different quantitatively for individual organisms. The difficulty of working out the relation of hierachical thermodyanmics to macrothermodynamics (which depends on this qualitative difference) is the reason that we have not seen some regression to a mean in the mode that temperature flows would remand regardless of the non-scientific social effects of the same research.This does not answer that ICR sufficiently tells a "consistent" story about genetics but an answer from "ordinary biological parlance" could show that ICR was not less consistent than where current thought on biology actually is and I do not see that discovering biodiversity is a problem for Darwinism as Gould suggests dichotomously is anything but necessary.I have not indicated how the unique parameters of Gladyshev's thermostat are connected with what Lewontin named a "parent" in your link to ICR but I have made a mark on EVC which indicates some ideas into a populational thinking on the subject(recombination in lichens). ICR is working on a large GENE project and as Gould segued this section towards the scholarship of Will Provine and Haldane's remarks that might be construed as creationist hybrid exceptional cases or causes(orhogonally) I think it is too hard to predict today where YECs are going to go and have been in another decade. I gave Will Provine a copy and a head's up on Gladyshev's work,,, but like the orthodoxy Gould argues in the phase of Will's method of doing biology(interview old scientists), heterodoxically, Will never willed to read it and return but a single comment to me.

quote:

---

All quotes are from SJ GOULD "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" around pagge 512

---

Was that reply computer-generated or something?The only bit that seems relevant to the title is the phrase "A certain way that these points are responded to however can show that diversification of species IS a problem within this question for Darwinism", but this merely restates the claim.Try again. How does the origin of species contradict the Origin of Species?

An off-topic appreciation. Few people appreciate the craft evident in a Brad McFall post. Each text is laboriously typed into Microsoft Word and spell checked using the romanized Sanskrit dictionary. The word order of the entire text is then randomized. The result is then taken to Alta Vista's Babelfish where it is translated first into Japanese, then into Swahili and French. Every fourth word is then removed and replaced with phrases randomly selected from an online journal article dealing with the appearance of chytrid fungus in dead adult Leptodactylus ocellatus. The word order of the entire text is then reversed. Another trip to Babelfish translates the text first into Russian, then Korean, Hindi and Portugese. Random words are then inserted at irregular intervals from a 1948 US Army Corps of Engineers survey of erosian features in Butte, Montana and the ingredients label on the back of a box of Betty Crocker® Premium Chocolate Fudge Frosting mix. The whole is then grammar checked in Vietnamese and spell checked in Latin, then posted online.It's a thing to behold. Sorry Archer. I even gave you a POTML for this one. However...Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Off topic

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

ONE- I assumed "Gould" could speak for Darwinism.TWO- I showed an instance where Fisher was likely mistaken.THREE- I indicated that Gould thought he had disposed of "Fisher" with respect to his own ideas.FOUR - I presented a link to material that developed, would be within the domain of diversification as Gould reformulated it, IN THE CITATION PROVIDED and linked now below and yet is an EXCEPTION --------------------or-----------INVALIDATION of Darwinism and hence possibly within the critique of Darwinian biology of a root YECism of ICR.If what you are asking for is a complete dissection of the Gould tome than that is more than I can provide in any one post. We can only link 16 images per EVC page at most. That would have to be a topic for its own thread then.see the citation here etc:
Subjects and Series | Harvard University PressI will work up a more detailed citation of how Gould's use of Fisher shows that diversification via Gould is problem for Darwinism while Fisher is wrong but this is not something a reader needs me for. Anyone who can read can read it. Buy the book from Amazon then.http://www.amazon.com/...-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135Please do not take this as dismissive but it took over a half hour to post the above and this would take comparatively longer to work through all of the references to Fisher in Gould relevant to C/E...There is nothing "computer generated" in my posts. I have a really clear sense of "truth" and years reading biology behind me to help me. I was lucky to have a Grandmother interested in Gould who supplied me my SECOND copy to read. The first one I marginalized too heavily.The material you seemed to find irrelevant were mental "place holders" in the Gould text that would enable you to read simply the same from Gould if you tried. I will try again but I do not have an infinite amount of time for this.Edited by Brad McFall, : added what is "is".Edited by Brad McFall, : ytpoEdited by Brad McFall, : explanation

So, will you now show how the origin of species contadicts the Origin of Species?Your call.

I tried to show how Gould is or you will read is logically misworking.It was not me who tried to compare Simpson and Wright on adaptation. Mayr simply TOLD Gould not to fret so much over "netural polymorhpisms."Yes, obviously if you agree with Gould ( you have neither said this as far as I am aware nor tried to say how my point TO Gould's work is incorrect), you can try to sustain a writing that the "Origin" is about the origin of species etc. Gould set up a version of the history of biology in which one might THINK there is "no" contradiction there.I was making the point that DIVERSIFICATION IS A PROBLEM FOR DARWINIANS and that this may be behind YEC criticism. The resolution of this need not show that there is a "logical" contradiction in Darwin's Origin. But if it WAS an INVALIDATION then there would be a rejection of the "Origin" no matter what the "logic" is as logic would only give the form and not the matter suffiently (hence my suspicion down below (in this post)among the mammals rather than between the vertbrate=invertebrate axis) under the dispute. Now if it was an "exception" the field is MUCH wider and as I indicated this would take more than a single post to detail.If you do not contribute but return control to me I can not proceed (except insofar as I generally do here on EVC, which I do do in due time). Do you, Dr. Adequate hold that Gould's presentation of "species selection" is adequate for all biological parlance?I was not trying to start a subthread track IN EVOLUTION showing this biology as this was a question about EVC, the YECish threads and issues about Creationism. I was really really really trying to point out to you that it is very very hard to be critical and claiming "inconsistancy" with ICR when the very same problem IS WITHIN current biology.I would have taken it as a good riposte if you told me that I cant read Gould but you did not say this. Gould teamed up with Will Provine and wrote about confermation of his (Gould's version) hardening from Will WHEN Will was contracturally supposed to be mentoring me and my WRITTEN project on "downward causation" GOULD SUBSEQENTLY to this time realized was a better direction to develop his reading of an orign in "The Origin." Be careful to notice how Dobshanshy is treated differently by Gould and Provine and then see how Mayr "down the hall" responded.That is working hard or hardly working ( I, unlike Gould and Provine do not think this issue "dissapears into the night" but if you just want to be obvious then like reading Gould my way or some way that Gould would want it to be read is simply to say nothing. Gould asked ME, what a green pepper was. I am not kidding. This, at the same table DS Wilson confidently argued for group selection. Gould wanted to extend the deme argument to these species but he could not eat off the same table. Croizat KNEW that and found out that the American Museum of Natural History failed to "ventilate"(Croizat word) the same. I am NOT confident that these ""things can be object- and Miltonic-wise said about species as Gould is. I notice that the objects and traits considered rather are part of WHAT GOULD calls taxonomy and thus he can WRITE(Look through his whole book on the Fox and the Pox) but that Croizat labeled rather more materially "taxogeny" and can not short of the composition being refined defined and so so fine be so organized. If we are going to have a post-generation of Gouldian biology that substitutes written words in English for actual biological body parts your question would only find a rethorical tone. I know this is not what you intend or so I like to think so, so again it seems you are only requesting a complete potentially Gouldian legacy destroying call from me from which is both not to be a part of this thread nor one that I am inclined to write unless I was paid to (try).Propose a new thread on issues about Darwin's Origin and Gould's notion of that book and I will slowly and surely ablige, but not here, not now. If I find you are only going to use the internet to make objection to my posting without contributing to the work of reading, it is not going to be simple if you cant "simply" get it, I will have to bow and buy out. I already made the point I am going to make there, here, in this thread. If you want a skinner presentation understand that cats and dogs are not the same adaptive valleys, else go fish & I am not joking nor making making fun of you.You seem to be asking me futher to respond in the British way that Gould spur Provine for but look, I got my biology from the very source that Gould had to look to Russia for. He did not need to, it was still in the USA. They are arugin about if there were two "phases" dating 1937 or 44 into the early 60s before I was born but it will always come back genetically to if tiatothere's used their horns with some kind of calculus behind it's genes. That was from the 30s. The writing will never get out of this except by failure of the coming generation to be informed.It really was that easy. Best in the best of all worlds. Brad.You said in mess 177

quote:

---

So their website claims both that diversification of species exists and is a problem for Darwinism (very funny, I'm not surprised they don't supply any reasoning) and that "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."

---

So I still do not understand why you are NECESSARILY moving beyond your dual italics to the phrasing from the conjunction...All I did was start one down a path where there IS REASONING that diversification and problems for Darwinism.You quoted THEM as saying "neither has anyone else" but then do you understand this, what I started here, or are you hooked on moving backward through your own reasoning from ICR's "a new species orginating." If it was ICR's lets see in this thread the context printed else you are trying to spilt hairs with me that are legs.

Morris founded the organization and he(or his father,I cant remember) was the one who made YEC a debatable issue with the Genesis Flood book(I never read it fyi/btw) Based on some other things you have said, it seems like you maybe should spend some time understanding the YEC position.The Flood (for example) seems to be a hot topic around here.Here is the best page for all kinds of relevent data on the best Creationism presentation of debatable flood "evidence" in various fields. (my favorite it the topic section "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?" which has lots of interesting data and links. Notice that the often repeated claim that "Australians didnt have a flood legend" is falsified. The Chinese issue is really interesting.) The Flood | Answers in Genesis Notice on the bottom, the various other links that lead to further article link pages devoted to special genres.Like the Ark FAQs Noah’s Ark | Answers in Genesis There is also Fossil and Geology FAQs.Here is the broad FAQs links. Answers | Answers in Genesis All FAQs lead to journal article links (Creationish mostly but not always) and detailed data. Answers | Answers in Genesis Maybe the discussion would be better if you simply started a topic/thread based on certain large AIG data pages (like the Flood topics)then quoted and responded to each and every detail.This back and go on fragmented,and petty, hair split debates just to say "gotcha" isnt very informative.I almost think (I am naive,true)that if most threads/posts were disciplined, orderly, and persistent (meaning that EVERY AIG article is responded to) with nothing but detailed quote and responce of AIG (which I use as an example of a Creationist organization that has over a dozen full time PhD contributors),then they,and othe rlike minded folk, would be forced to join the discussion in defense.I suggested already that people watch Baughs T.V. show every week and respond to each and every point.I have noticed that every little minor thing I say around (to top it all off-on Creation/ Evolution issues,Im non-partisan too) here attracts various attempts at hair-splitting debates.Plus more than a few flat out smart a$$ responce posts at times,*AND* for actual Creationists,its 10 times as many "responces" are matched for every lackluster post.If people are THAT hungry for debate then my advice is to follow my suggestions above.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I'm afraid that GDR's idea of reasoning appears to be "start with a conclusion and come up with excuses for believing it". For instance he claims that "God dunnit" is the most reasonable answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing" - but he hadn't even realised that "God" would be a something - his "most rational" answer wasn't even an answer. That isn't something I could call rational.