A question for creationists about creation

[Charlymaumushi]

5/5 stars for the pills. DRUG UP! 4 advil 2 tylenol hell yeah! nothing hurts damn it! lol

[Epydemic2020]

I accept evolution, but I will play devils advocate for a moment.

If young earth creationism is true, we should expect micro evolution is true and macro evolution is false. The same evidence which supports micro evolution would also support intelligent design.

The best theory would be the theory which explains the most facts.

If the creationist can prove macro evolution is false, they would show that their theory is the best, because it explains reality better than evolution.

whatcha think?

[dataloreforever]

I agree.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

A fundamental problem with the young earth "micro" evolution theory is that natural selection gets expressed through environmental constraints and changes in this. A species does not gain wings simply because it's cool, but that it's the most efficient, best adaptation to the environment. The only way they account for this with a 'young earth' is through migration (?).

That's a lot of walking in < 10,000 years.

[Epydemic2020]

I think creationists would argue animals were created with wings already being adapted to their environment, where the advocate of evolution would say creatures developed wings because it helped them survive.

I am not really sure how/if migration plays a role in the young earth creationists viewpoint.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

Sorry. I hate the word limit. I was just giving an illustration of -an- adaptation, not specifically one the young earth creationist would support.

What I mean is in 10,000 there has NOT been significant global changes in the environment. i.e. there have been no glacial ice ages in that period or deserts to wetlands. Any adaptations are a response to the environment, so the only way an animal would be subject to microevolution would be by traveling to different environments.

[Epydemic2020]

I think the young earth creationists can make some claims of microevolution without appealing to migration. Take the famous peppered moth evolution for instance. Even on a young timescale there are still significant enough changes in the environment.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

True, but moths, insects, molds, bacteria...et al, have pretty fast reproduction cycles within a short amount of time (you can have 17,000 generations of viruses in 5-10 years) . This is also true of small mammals like rabbits, mice and dogs (though not as fast as insects)

But there are 'kinds' (as defined by them) of larger animals who have a relatively low reproductive rate, like species of horses, bears and deer, which would not have environmental changes without migration.

[Epydemic2020]

You might be right, I think I am probably just missing something.

Why would the bears and horses environment not change/not have microevolution? I thought all animals were constantly adapting to their environment, except for animals which are incredibly well adapted (like some species of sharks).

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

Adaptations in large populations, in a constant environment, is almost non-existent or very slow (any 'changes' get overwritten by interbreeding). You would not see any changes in 10K years this way. The ONLY explanation of changes 'in kind' with YEC would be migration and isolated subpopulations.

We know there are 8 species of bears branched off. YEC say 'ok microevolution', but to explain that happening so quickly implies MASSIVE migrations in the absence of time. It's silly

[Epydemic2020]

ah ok. I see what you are saying now.  I think the creationist museum actually advocates some type of hyper-micro-evolution answer rather than migration.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

I really wish I could be less terse with this responses. Anyway, the only way hyper micro-evolution would happen is if hyper metabolism was also happening. Was it? I've seen nothing to suggest that.

They're just guessing because the alternative would be to accept 'science' as science says it happened. Too bad. They want to find the conclusion first and then find data to support it rather than the other way around.

[Epydemic2020]

I think the YEC advocates also argue that these "kinds" were much more genetically rich than the animals we currently have, and that is what gave them the ability to micro-evolve so rapidly. Either way, It does not seem to be the most probable explanation of what happened given the evidence we have.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

By YEC 'arguing' you mean 'banging on the table'? lol Like I said, they do all of this without evidence or even a basic understanding of biology.

For instance, 'Dr' Ken Hovind suggesting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that DNA can only deteriorate over time because 'order' goes to 'chaos' ...without remembering that the law simply describes systems where heat disperses into cold and our heat, and thus order, is maintained by the sun The same ignorance is true elsewhere

[Epydemic2020]

I don't think they are right in their viewpioint, but to be fair, they are not all as crazy as kent hovind.

I am going to make a video in the future which talks about how kent hovind/ray comfort makes creationists look really bad.

I don't personally care if people disagree with evolution, but if you are going to take the time to argue against it in a public forum, you have a duty to understand what you are arguing against and not be dishonest.

[gatorpower]

Epydemic2020,

I would love to see YEC roll out a new taxonomy of creatures and present evidence that suggests the 'secular' world has it wrong and what they consider to be the 'original' species. They do not even have to worry about how 'god' distributed them across the planet. They all came out of the ark at one point. Go ahead and trace all the migration patterns back to Mount Ararat and give us a clear picture.

Has micro-evolution accounted for 10% of new speciation?

[Epydemic2020]

That is an interesting point. I guess they would have had to migrate from the ark, assuming YEC is true.

[gregrutz]

They need micro evolution to get everything on the boat. And they admit it has been proven.

[Epydemic2020]

think she makes an appeal to consequences at the end.

I don't have a problem with people believing in young earth creationism, but I do have a problem with the prevalence of terrible arguments for that position and seeming ignorance of the position they argue against.

[b3rtne]

I have no idea how you can not lose your cool. Just hearing about people using the same arguments for creation pisses me off. You're actually responding to them. It blows my mind that people still use the same tired ass creation arguments that have already been shot down. I wish people would wise up and start doing research before they waste my time. READ SOMETHING! Oh, and get some sleep man, you look so tired that you almost look like you want to puke. Good video.

[dataloreforever]

Funny thing is I did. I think I have the flu.

[Katalyzt]

Evidence for Creation(ce) = 0

Evidence for Evolution(ee) = 75546453 :O)

ee > ce

Katalyzt