There seems to be a major point of disagreement amongst those proposing a Y.E.C. model of life's history. On the one hand, some propose wide spread and rapid evolution, including speciation (within "kinds") after the flood, while others deny that such things can happen. So, does the model require this speciation, especially considering that space on the Ark was limited? And how does it happen? Are beneficial mutations involved?
A number of factors are involved, beneficial mutations potentially, but not the type that creates new information in the genome, but there is allopatric speciation to consider which may have been very rapid for the first few hundred years post-flood before it settled down, almost an explosion of variety I imagine.
Post-flood, there would be no more antediluvian world. Logically this represents a major change for all organisms. Pre-flood they would have lived in more gentle, more uniform climates, the bible says there was increased longevity. So the speciation post-flood, the pressure would have been superb immediately after the flood, different populations spreading out with new selection pressures on those animals.
As for the misconception that there was, "rapid evolution" after the flood, that is usually a sign people are indolent about the mathematics. If you do the basic mathematics you will see that natural selection, or even call it, "evolution" if you want, does not depend upon a passage of time, it depends upon the amount of generations you can get within a passage of time.
So then let us pretend just for an example, humans get off the ark and they have a generation of say 20 years for arguments sake, and birds annually. What does that mean for, "evolution"?
Logically it means that if 40 years pass, evolution only has two chances to evolve humans since evolution is all about reproduction, but evolution has had 40 chances to evolve birds.
Relativistically, if that's a word, this means that relatively speaking, if 4,500 years have passed since the ark the maths shows that given those figures were correct, this would mean 225 generations would have occured in humans approximately, which means that 4,500 years of time for birds, would actually be 225 years.
So birds have had about 90,000 bird years to become birds, which as a belief, is not unreasonable when compared to the belief that lightning zapped slime became bunnies, giraffes, trees, fleas, beas, cheese and hairy knees, in well, whatever number it is they give these days.
So really from a logical perspective I only have to ask myself this; what is more reasonable? Is it factual that large boats can float, and that birds become birds? Yes, in fact both claims are provable, so I see no major problem with this.
edit; I have written more about this issue here in message one of this thread; http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6330... (the numbers I give are only guesses of course, about the generation spans, just approximations, I have no great knowledge of how long it is for each generation of the various species, but basically it's just to show you that we would expect more speciation and diversity for organisms with fast generation spans.)
We know what you believe Faith. Unfortunately for you reality shows that what you believe is simply nonsense.
Bare assertion using the epithet, "nonsense". You agree as a group that what creationists believe is nonsense, therefore conclude that it is.
Oh how wonderfully clever. that means so very much to us, I am now converted to an evolutionist because some prejudiced bigots say I believe nonsense. I guess that means the belief large boats can float is nonsense, and the believe birds reproduce birds is, "nonsense". But lightning zapped sludge bringing us ATP synthase, DNA code, epigenetics and millions of viable anatomies, I suppose, is, "fact" in Jar's world.
I have no intention or desire to convert you or anyone else Mike as you well know. You are free to continue to believe whatever nonsense you wish.
I love it when people don't understand that if you beg-the-question twice it becomes argumentum ad nauseam fallacy.
Now you've SAID (and the operative word is, "SAID") twice that what we believe is nonsense, and you now incredibly said it a third time in the following statement, and added a new epithet; (Lol)
If I ever post that then we can discuss it but until then it just gets tossed into the trashcan with the rest of the nonsense creationists post.
The "rest" of the, "nonsense".
So now you add the "rest" of what we say, which we also must take for granted is true because the great Jar-god has stated it.
No arrogance there then.
Is this really all you have to offer then? Basically your message is giving me this theme; "that's it mike, that's all I've got, I am going to use words and insults and simply assert things about creationists all the evolutionists will agree with me."
Fair enough Jar, if you are saying you have no intellectual integrity and are incapable of being wrong then at least I know there is no point in conversing with you about anything whatsoever, since I just represent a target for you, one who is guilty-as-charged, with the crime of creationism, and one who will get the Jar-epithets fired at him because he represents that position.
Okay Mike. As I have said you are free to believe whatever you want.
Creationism though is not a crime; it is simply silly and wrong. No hatred of either you or creationism, neither rises to a level much higher than mild humor.
Young Earth and Special Creation are both refuted even by the Bible itself since there are two mutually exclusive creation myths just as there are two mutually exclusive flood myths in the very stories.
Creationism and Young Earth are as dead and worthless as flat earth or trolls under the bridges but fortunately you can still believe in such things. Just don't get surprised when other kinda chuckle.
And the award for the post most packed with question-begging-epithets goes to...............
Jar, can I just ask you a question out of polite interest? Do you know the function of a discussion board, and how a debate is supposed to work?
For example do you think that when someone says something, they shouldn't have to provide any supporting evidence, or supporting reasons for why they infer that thing? Because if debate is just about saying things, asserting things, then isn't that just a way of not proving anything, but getting some kind of pleasure from simply calling people things? Does this strike you as something terribly clever, tactically speaking?
Okay you've had fun calling creationists/ism things. Okay then. Very mature.
Jar, I am sorry to disappoint you but if someone comes up to me in the street and puts a label on me saying, "female" that won't mean that I have female genitalia so why on earth would I care?
yes, I quite understand, creationism and creationists clearly affect you in some way and terribly annoy you in a way inconsistent with your attitudes to other beliefs. It is a wonder for you always seemed to be a pluralist and would recommend various religions and creeds of all types and diversity and speak of them with a kind of fondness as though recommending I believe in them, but it seems there is one particular creed/belief you really do have a prejudice towards, and that is the belief that the Lord God really did create the universe.
That's why I use the term, "crime of creationism". It is sarcasm, because it is a dig at the way some evolutionists treat creationists, with the kind of contempt most people might only reserve for Bundy or Hitler.
I mean when it comes down to it, what is so repulsive to you about believing God created all of the wonderful things in nature? Is this something worthy of insult, even though I am not harming anyone else by believing this? Arguably a materialistic tornado-in-a-junkyard creating a 747 jet, is at least as absurd and worthy of derision, and both worldviews could play the derision-game.
Scientists have created a story of history and some don't accept that story and believe the circumstantial evidence they use to confirm and even incorrectly affirm that viewpoint, is inadequate. That's all. We can still be adults about it, I say.
But you know, if you get a kick out of it and it's the highlight of the day, by all means use my post yet again as a launchpad for more buz-words.
And certainly yes, only a Creationist conman could even create something as silly and worthy of derision as nonsense of tornado-in-a-junkyard creating a 747 jet.
Lol. Sticks and stones won't break mikey's bones, my lad.
The 747 example is just meant to compare the specified complexity of an object, because to believe all the design came to exist randomly and materialistically by chance is a similar belief. I didn't mean to offend your atheistic beliefs, I was just saying that typically it is a subjective matter the things people find absurd.
To just conclude something is false because it is absurdly unbelievable, is an argument from incredulity.
My point wasn't to attack an atheist worldview, in many ways I can appreciate the sentiment of the facts it might explain. My point was that you have people of two positions; theism and atheism, and both could mock each other and make a case as to why each respective scenario is absurd. Naturally all atheists will I suppose see a theistic scenario as absurd. That's not something they can help, they genuinely find it unbelievable, and theists find it unbelievable that for no reason at all a cell, which is as complex as a city, and riddled with all types of designed things, would create itself for no reason then eventually lead to giraffes, fleas, bees, cheese and hairy knees.
So what I was saying is that anyone can play your game.
But I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. Does that mean you don't have any specific answers to those things I put to you?
And of course you are just making shit up there Mike as always
Creativity is the greatest tool and why we are made in His image, My lad.
Yup, as I said, no reasonable questions. Mike, any reasonable debate about Young Earth or Creationism has been over for several hundred years.
The reality and facts are settled.
There is no YEC model.
There was no Biblical Flood.
Genesis tales are folk tales, myths and "Just So Stories".
So the answer is there isn't anything more to debate to your mind than assertions, of which you have now provided some more?
"I'm sorry your honour, he doesn't seem to understand the question can I re-phrase it? .....can you provide an argument as to the dozen or so claims you have made in this thread other than to just SAY them?"
Judge; "Over-ruled, the witness is clearly high on drugs or something, we shall go no further with this line of questioning...can't you tell mikey lawyer, you're simply a silly person that only accepts nonsense and are equatable to a flat earth believer because the witness says so. hahaha."
*the People laugh*
mikey; "that's great news for when I plead innocence in my murder case next week, now don't forget your honour, when my client says he's innocent, he SAID that he was innocent so you must let him go free."
And Mike posts all he has ever posted, word salad and mental masturbation.
Reality wins Mike and Creationists NEVER post anything related to reality.
Perhaps if a there is ever a Creationist who post anything even remotely related to evidence then there will be something reasonable to debate
Oh my goodness.....I must be seeing things.......you added MORE assertions about me and creationists?
There was me thinking in "reality" an argument consisted of premises and a conclusion inferred from them? Apparently that's, "word salad", and there is no such thing as a syllogism, which is a figment of my imagination your honour.
I guess I was only dreaming when Jar posted about thirty assertions about mike and creationists, and there is no such thing as a bare assertion fallacy, or question begging epithets. Clearly these are things mikey conjured up so don't google them whatever you do, because why would mikey's imagination be googlable?
of course, "reality" can't win anything, as that's an anthropomorphism. People win things and reality isn't a person.
I digress into word salad, which means I am speaking fantasy again, I guess that means that "reality" is a person after all. And His name is Jesus Christ!