AiG: Top 10 Myths About Creation

[FreezBee]

AiG has put up a list of, what they consider to be the top 10 myths about creation[ism].


Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

AiG

Prior to the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species especially, some Christians did claim that species were immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did not mean the same thing then as it does now—nor was there ever any reason to assume fixity in the first place.

© source where applicable

Notice here that the article almost acknowledges that Charles Darwin's Origin wasn't all bad.

If they had gone a bit more into detail, they could have mentioned that it all started with Carolus Linnaeus' construction of systematic nomenclature, where a species is supplied with a binomen of the form Genus Species-within-that-genus, which in turn required a more precise definition of species, which in turn required a more precise definition of subspecies and variant and so on, which in turn gave rise to Darwin's theory of evolution.


Myth 9: Intelligent Design Is Creationism

As defined in this article, "Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us", whereas "the [Intelligent Design Movement] holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer", where "[t]he identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. "

Well, yes and no. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is the de facto leading institution of the IDM, and Philippe Johnson, leader of the DI CSC, doesn't always hide that there is a hidden agenda.


Myth 8: The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook

AiG

Underneath this myth is the assumption by many scientists that only natural (and not supernatural) causes can explain reality. God could not have created, for example, because special creation is denied, not by fieldwork or research, but by biased presuppostions.

© source where applicable

I am not so sure about that -- rather the assumption is that a science textbook goes into a bit more detail about the natural world than does the Bible. It is not a fault with the bible that it doesn't go into such details, it only indicates that it's not the intention with the Bible that it should tell us, how the natural world is working -- we are left to figure that out oursellf.


Ok, this should suffice as a taste of, what these 10 articles are about.


- FreezBee

[rogue06]

Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution.

© source where applicable

Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

[FreezBee]

Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution.

© source where applicable

Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

I suppose it's the usual YEC sematic gymnastics -- to YECs (well, at least those that bother to voice an opinion), evolution = macro-evolution = 1-step change from molecules to human.

- FreezBee

[Jorge]

I suppose it's the usual YEC sematic gymnastics -- to YECs (well, at least those that bother to
voice an opinion), evolution = macro-evolution = 1-step change from molecules to human.

- FreezBee

********************************************************************************

From your OP and post above, you are ...

(a) As ignorant on this subject as the day is long

OR

(b) you are sufficiently aware of the truth in the matter yet choose to propagate a lie.

PICK ONE - (a) or (b),FreezBee.

BTW, the same goes for your ideological comrade in arms, namely, rogue06
as well as for many others here that have not yet voiced their opinions.

Jorge

[FreezBee]

********************************************************************************

From your OP and post above, you are ...

(a) As ignorant on this subject as the day is long

OR

(b) you are sufficiently aware of the truth in the matter yet choose to propagate a lie.

PICK ONE - (a) or (b),FreezBee.

BTW, the same goes for your ideological comrade in arms, namely, rogue06
as well as for many others here that have not yet voiced their opinions.

Jorge

Ok, so if I am ignorant, or have chosen to propagate a lie, why don't you take the opportunity to explain to us, what happens to be the truth of the matter?

- FreezBee

[rogue06]

********************************************************************************

From your OP and post above, you are ...

(a) As ignorant on this subject as the day is long

OR

(b) you are sufficiently aware of the truth in the matter yet choose to propagate a lie.

PICK ONE - (a) or (b),FreezBee.

BTW, the same goes for your ideological comrade in arms, namely, rogue06
as well as for many others here that have not yet voiced their opinions.

Jorge

or should that be :piggy:?

I'll let my comment in post #2 speak for itself

[wattsr1]

********************************************************************************

From your OP and post above, you are ...

(a) As ignorant on this subject as the day is long

OR

(b) you are sufficiently aware of the truth in the matter yet choose to propagate a lie.

PICK ONE - (a) or (b),FreezBee.

BTW, the same goes for your ideological comrade in arms, namely, rogue06
as well as for many others here that have not yet voiced their opinions.

Jorge

Well Grasshopper, FreezBee could always have operated to your characteristic level, which you display in the post above, and left it at that.

Would that have made you feel any better? It would have saved him a lot of work too.


Any more thoughts about engaging me over in Philo’s thread re “I have a problem”? Or do you prefer to have picked your Bible cherry then run?



Regards, Roland

[FreezBee]

********************************************************************************

From your OP and post above, you are ...

(a) As ignorant on this subject as the day is long

Just came to think about this. The length of today's day is 7 hours, and half a year ago it was 17 hours -- it goes with the latitude (55 N). So, subject to option (a) I am less than half as ignorant now as I was half a year ago. Not bad, eh?

- FreezBee

[will33har]

Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution.

© source where applicable

Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

Nope. Let me see if I can esplane it for you. Starting from the observations documented here...
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm

No matter how many times you breed two poodles together you will never get a wolf, the poodle does not have the necessary genetic information to code for wolf physiology. However you can take two wolves, and, over time, through selective breeding to remove the genetic information to create the other various species of dog, eventually produce a poodle. Granted this is not natural selection because a poodle would never survive in nature, but it does demonstrate how natural selection works to an extent. Similarly, two foxes will never render a wolf, but two wolves, over time will produce a fox, under the right environmental conditions through the natural process of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutation, for any given environment on earth. Now this study found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world, that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs, and no DNA evidence was found of coyotes or jackals. But this does not exclude the possibility of a now extinct wolf that carried all the genetic information necessary for the divergence of the species we see today. While not proof of a single common ancestor of the dog kind, it's not evidence against one either.

Now the creationist standpoint is that all the various species on earth can be traced back to a number of kinds of animal, dog kind, horse kind, etc. from which the species we see today diverged, but that none of these kind arose from any one specific single ancestor, each kind is unique and is not related to any other kind. i.e That common decent only occurs within a kind, it does not give rise to new kinds. So we are in agreement with evaluation only to the point that Genus, in some cases, family in most cases, are not inter related. i.e. no common decent for which there is no supporting evidence, only local decent, for which there is supporting evidence.

How many trolls have you seen come through this forum trying to use semantics to their advantage to prove that God does not exist or that belief in him is irrational, etc. etc. Why is it automatically assumed that YEC's, whom you should consider your brothers in Christ, would use the same tactics against you, and not that unsaved fallible men who share no relationship with you in any way, would not? A house divided cannot stand. Evolutionists have used the evidence for local decent as some kind of proof of common decent when it is not. "See dogs change and ducks change and horses change so evolution (change with in a kind) happens, since evolution (common decent) occurs, all species can be traced back to a common ancestor."

[wattsr1]

However you can take two wolves, and, over time, through selective breeding to remove the genetic information to create the other various species of dog, eventually produce a poodle.

I have never seen a wolf micro evolve to a domestic dog (say a poodle) in the wild, let alone in the lab, or under any one's guidance.

Do you know of anyone who has?

And if someone has observed this, what genetic information was removed frrom the wolf to make the domestic dog? Do you have any examples for me?

(However, there is a method we use to inform us that domestic dogs did evolve from wolves. By that method, we collect data and draw the inference that this really did happen. The exact same methodology tells as about the realities of evolution that takes species very far from each other over time, to the point that we get new genera, families, classes, etc. Inferential reasoning is a very powerful tool and used an awful lot in physics, chemistry, astronomy, genetics, meteorology, etc. It's used a lot in biology (read evolution) too. )



Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

Nope. Let me see if I can esplane it for you. Starting from the observations documented here...
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm

No matter how many times you breed two poodles together you will never get a wolf, the poodle does not have the necessary genetic information to code for wolf physiology. However you can take two wolves, and, over time, through selective breeding to remove the genetic information to create the other various species of dog, eventually produce a poodle. Granted this is not natural selection because a poodle would never survive in nature, but it does demonstrate how natural selection works to an extent. Similarly, two foxes will never render a wolf, but two wolves, over time will produce a fox, under the right environmental conditions through the natural process of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutation, for any given environment on earth. Now this study found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world, that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs, and no DNA evidence was found of coyotes or jackals. But this does not exclude the possibility of a now extinct wolf that carried all the genetic information necessary for the divergence of the species we see today. While not proof of a single common ancestor of the dog kind, it's not evidence against one either.

Now the creationist standpoint is that all the various species on earth can be traced back to a number of kinds of animal, dog kind, horse kind, etc. from which the species we see today diverged, but that none of these kind arose from any one specific single ancestor, each kind is unique and is not related to any other kind. i.e That common decent only occurs within a kind, it does not give rise to new kinds. So we are in agreement with evaluation only to the point that Genus, in some cases, family in most cases, are not inter related. i.e. no common decent for which there is no supporting evidence, only local decent, for which there is supporting evidence.

How many trolls have you seen come through this forum trying to use semantics to their advantage to prove that God does not exist or that belief in him is irrational, etc. etc. Why is it automatically assumed that YEC's, whom you should consider your brothers in Christ, would use the same tactics against you, and not that unsaved fallible men who share no relationship with you in any way, would not? A house divided cannot stand. Evolutionists have used the evidence for local decent as some kind of proof of common decent when it is not. "See dogs change and ducks change and horses change so evolution (change with in a kind) happens, since evolution (common decent) occurs, all species can be traced back to a common ancestor."

**************************************************************************************

Adding my log to this fire ... (this is not directed at you, will33har) ...


rogue06 wrote (in a mocking tone) :

Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

FreezBee wrote (acting innocent, as if he'd never seen this before) :

Ok, so if I am ignorant, or have chosen to propagate a lie, why don't you take
the opportunity to explain to us, what happens to be the truth of the matter?

The reasons why there are two and only two alternatives (ignorance or propagating
a lie) is because (1) I personally have explained this here on TWeb more times
than I care to remember; (2) even if you deny this, the same site from where you
obtained the 'Top 10 Myths ...'' article, namely, the AiG site, contains tons of material
that explains the matter in full detail. IOW, you have NO EXCUSE for either being
ignorant or for spreading lies.

Here's my ultra-concise explanation (in which I will be referring exclusively to the 'Myth' that
rogue06 picked on : Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

The reason why we (AiG and myself) are absolutely correct in stating this is because
we are talking about the General ToE, not the ToE that is very dishonestly bait-n-switched
with the GToE. Specifically, I have often stated here (scores of times) that any informed
Biblical Creationist would agree that natural selection and mutations is a scientific fact.
IOW, we Biblical Creationists would agree with that certain aspects of the ToE that are
scientifically valid, verifiable and undeniable. Yes, the allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change over time.

But the FACT of the matter is that the GToE goes beyond that - far beyond. The GToE
not only says that mutations and natural selection occur, but that these are the sole
causing agent for the entire flora and fauna found on planet earth and, furthermore,
that ALL species on earth today are the result of mutations and natural selection
acting on a common ancestor that naturally arose some 3.6 billion years ago.
That is NOT science, that is a belief, part of a Naturalistic religion.

THAT is what we do not agree with and THAT is why we are absolutely correct in
saying that mutations and natural selection are not evolution (i.e., not the 'evolution'
(namely, the GToE) that is part of a Naturalistic, anti-Scripture religion).

That makes it the 50th (?) time (perhaps more) that I've explained this to you clowns
and you keep coming back at me with "you always run away .... you never explain
anything ... you are a coward" and similar dishonest BS. I'm expecting that in a
few weeks, when this post is forgotten, I'll once again read your dishonest whines.
I think that, like a crooked lawyer, you people keep asking the question over and over
until you get the answer that you want to hear.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Nope. Let me see if I can esplane it for you. Starting from the observations documented here...
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm

No matter how many times you breed two poodles together you will never get a wolf, the poodle does not have the necessary genetic information to code for wolf physiology. However you can take two wolves, and, over time, through selective breeding to remove the genetic information to create the other various species of dog, eventually produce a poodle. Granted this is not natural selection because a poodle would never survive in nature, but it does demonstrate how natural selection works to an extent. Similarly, two foxes will never render a wolf, but two wolves, over time will produce a fox, under the right environmental conditions through the natural process of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutation, for any given environment on earth. Now this study found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world, that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs, and no DNA evidence was found of coyotes or jackals. But this does not exclude the possibility of a now extinct wolf that carried all the genetic information necessary for the divergence of the species we see today. While not proof of a single common ancestor of the dog kind, it's not evidence against one either.

So you think wolves and foxes are the same 'kind', is that right?

Now the creationist standpoint is that all the various species on earth can be traced back to a number of kinds of animal, dog kind, horse kind, etc. from which the species we see today diverged, but that none of these kind arose from any one specific single ancestor, each kind is unique and is not related to any other kind. i.e That common decent only occurs within a kind, it does not give rise to new kinds. So we are in agreement with evaluation only to the point that Genus, in some cases, family in most cases, are not inter related. i.e. no common decent for which there is no supporting evidence, only local decent, for which there is supporting evidence.

How many trolls have you seen come through this forum trying to use semantics to their advantage to prove that God does not exist or that belief in him is irrational, etc. etc. Why is it automatically assumed that YEC's, whom you should consider your brothers in Christ, would use the same tactics against you, and not that unsaved fallible men who share no relationship with you in any way, would not? A house divided cannot stand. Evolutionists have used the evidence for local decent as some kind of proof of common decent when it is not. "See dogs change and ducks change and horses change so evolution (change with in a kind) happens, since evolution (common decent) occurs, all species can be traced back to a common ancestor."

Below is a chart of canid phylogenetic relationships established through detailed DNA analysis. Please tell us which are the original 'kinds'.

While you're at it, do you think you could please provide a rigorous scientific definition of the term 'genetic information' , and tell us how to measure it so you can tell if it has changed?

Please 'esplane' it to us, thanks!

- T

[oxmixmudd]

**************************************************************************************

Adding my log to this fire ... (this is not directed at you, will33har) ...


rogue06 wrote (in a mocking tone) :

Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

FreezBee wrote (acting innocent, as if he'd never seen this before) :

Ok, so if I am ignorant, or have chosen to propagate a lie, why don't you take
the opportunity to explain to us, what happens to be the truth of the matter?

The reasons why there are two and only two alternatives (ignorance or propagating
a lie) is because (1) I personally have explained this here on TWeb more times
than I care to remember; (2) even if you deny this, the same site from where you
obtained the 'Top 10 Myths ...'' article, namely, the AiG site, contains tons of material
that explains the matter in full detail. IOW, you have NO EXCUSE for either being
ignorant or for spreading lies.

Here's my ultra-concise explanation (in which I will be referring exclusively to the 'Myth' that
rogue06 picked on : Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution?!?

The reason why we (AiG and myself) are absolutely correct in stating this is because
we are talking about the General ToE, not the ToE that is very dishonestly bait-n-switched
with the GToE. Specifically, I have often stated here (scores of times) that any informed
Biblical Creationist would agree that natural selection and mutations is a scientific fact.
IOW, we Biblical Creationists would agree with that certain aspects of the ToE that are
scientifically valid, verifiable and undeniable. Yes, the allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change over time.

But the FACT of the matter is that the GToE goes beyond that - far beyond. The GToE
not only says that mutations and natural selection occur, but that these are the sole
causing agent for the entire flora and fauna found on planet earth and, furthermore,
that ALL species on earth today are the result of mutations and natural selection
acting on a common ancestor that naturally arose some 3.6 billion years ago.
That is NOT science, that is a belief, part of a Naturalistic religion.

THAT is what we do not agree with and THAT is why we are absolutely correct in
saying that mutations and natural selection are not evolution (i.e., not the 'evolution'
(namely, the GToE) that is part of a Naturalistic, anti-Scripture religion).

That makes it the 50th (?) time (perhaps more) that I've explained this to you clowns
and you keep coming back at me with "you always run away .... you never explain
anything ... you are a coward" and similar dishonest BS. I'm expecting that in a
few weeks, when this post is forgotten, I'll once again read your dishonest whines.
I think that, like a crooked lawyer, you people keep asking the question over and over
until you get the answer that you want to hear.

Jorge

IOW, you are correct because you erect a strawman definition of evolution and then say
"Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution"

How Orwellian of you.

JIm

[rogue06]

Hi Will.

No matter how many times you breed two poodles together you will never get a wolf, the poodle does not have the necessary genetic information to code for wolf physiology. However you can take two wolves, and, over time, through selective breeding to remove the genetic information to create the other various species of dog, eventually produce a poodle. Granted this is not natural selection because a poodle would never survive in nature, but it does demonstrate how natural selection works to an extent. Similarly, two foxes will never render a wolf, but two wolves, over time will produce a fox, under the right environmental conditions through the natural process of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutation, for any given environment on earth.

I would be very interested in seeing someone produce a fox by breeding wolves. That would be quite a trick. Or vice versa. And if they conclude that it can’t be done, do you think that rebuts your assertions here?

Now this study found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world, that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs, and no DNA evidence was found of coyotes or jackals. But this does not exclude the possibility of a now extinct wolf that carried all the genetic information necessary for the divergence of the species we see today. While not proof of a single common ancestor of the dog kind, it's not evidence against one either.

The most recent research indicates that dogs arose from roughly 16,300 years ago and from a couple hundred female wolf founders from the region of Southeastern Asia south of the Yangtze River. That dogs descended from wolves has been realized for generations so this is nothing new. Coyotes and jackals split off before (as Tiggy’s chart illustrates) and hence their DNA shouldn’t be expected though it would be interesting to see what genetic markers they share.

Now the creationist standpoint is that all the various species on earth can be traced back to a number of kinds of animal, dog kind, horse kind, etc. from which the species we see today diverged, but that none of these kind arose from any one specific single ancestor, each kind is unique and is not related to any other kind. i.e That common decent only occurs within a kind, it does not give rise to new kinds. So we are in agreement with evaluation only to the point that Genus, in some cases, family in most cases, are not inter related. i.e. no common decent for which there is no supporting evidence, only local decent, for which there is supporting evidence.

The problem here is the definition of “kind.” Equidae – “horse kind” – is an entire Family that includes more than horses and zebras as many YECs suppose. Here is a list from Wikipedia:

Family Equidae
Subfamily †Hyracotheriinae
Genus †Epihippus
Genus †Haplohippus
Genus †Heptaconodon
Genus †Hyracotherium (possibly paraphyletic with some species belonging to the family †Palaeotheriidae)
Genus †Orohippus
Genus †Xenicohippus
Subfamily †Anchitheriinae
Genus †Anchitherium
Genus †Archaeohippus
Genus †Desmatippus
Genus †Hypohippus
Genus †Kalobatippus
Genus †Megahippus
Genus †Mesohippus
Genus †Miohippus
Genus †Parahippus
Genus †Sinohippus
Subfamily Equinae
Genus †Merychippus
Tribe †Hipparionini
Genus †Eurygnathohippus
Genus †Hipparion
Genus †Hippotherium
Genus †Nannippus
Genus †Neohipparion
Genus †Pseudhipparion
Tribe Equini
Genus †Astrohippus
Genus †Calippus
Genus †Dinohippus
Genus Equus (22 species, 7 extant)
Genus †Hippidion
Genus †Onohippidium
Genus †Pliohippus
Genus †Protohippus
Genus †Acritohippus
Genus †Eurohippus
Genus †Heteropliohippus
Genus †Parapliohippus
Genus †Proboscidipparion

So you have all these kinds of horses arising via “Supermegaultrahyperfragilisticmicromacroevolution” in a couple centuries after the flood from a pair of horses with new species popping up virtually every other generation only to have all but the donkeys, onagers, zebras and “modern” horses go extinct in short order (usually before any humans could ever see them).

And frankly if it weren’t for the large number of intermediaries that we’ve uncovered in the fossil record between Hyracotherium and modern Equus YECs would soundly reject that they are of the same “kind” given the radical physical differences.

And if you accept the morphological and genetic evidence that horses belong in the same Order as tapirs and rhinoceros, “horse kind” really starts getting fuzzy.

How many trolls have you seen come through this forum trying to use semantics to their advantage to prove that God does not exist or that belief in him is irrational, etc. etc. Why is it automatically assumed that YEC's, whom you should consider your brothers in Christ, would use the same tactics against you, and not that unsaved fallible men who share no relationship with you in any way, would not?

Because many though not all the YECs that do post here engage in just that sort of behavior or even worse (have you actually paid attention to the vast majority of Jorge’s posts in Nat Sci?). But that has nothing to do with the post of mine you are criticizing. What you are criticizing here is my laughing at the claim that “Species changing via natural selection and mutations isn't evolution,” when it is in fact a very apt description of what the Theory of Evolution states.

A house divided cannot stand.

I have never heard a Christian who accepts the reality of evolution say that YECs aren’t real Christians, or at best second-class quasi-Christians as I’ve heard and read several YECs say about their brothers in Christ who disagree with them on this matter. For instance:

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] Some while back I started a thread with the same title. The answer I gave to the question was a very qualified 'Yes'. The reason for this thread is that, in spite of my qualifications, I've received numerous complaints / objections (not here at TWeb) regarding my answer. There was enough value in these objections that I decided to re-write the original. It follows below ... Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian? In a theoretical, idealistic sense, yes. In a real-life, practical, intellectually-consistent sense, no, it is not possible.

And by the time he is done he has included all Christians who reject evolution but don’t accept a young Earth. I honestly think you’re addressing the wrong side about this issue in that you won’t find the equivalent being said by the Christians here who accept the ToE about Christians who don’t.

Evolutionists have used the evidence for local decent as some kind of proof of common decent when it is not. "See dogs change and ducks change and horses change so evolution (change with in a kind) happens, since evolution (common decent) occurs, all species can be traced back to a common ancestor."

It’s that inconvenient fossil evidence which clearly demonstrates the changes you demand. The evidence for the evolution of reptiles into mammals is particularly robust and that for dinosaurs into birds is steadily gaining indisputable substantiation as well.

[NeilUnreal]

Why is it automatically assumed that YEC's, whom you should consider your brothers in Christ, would use the same tactics against you, and not that unsaved fallible men who share no relationship with you in any way, would not?

I for one, don't. Until their words prove otherwise, I assume that YECs are arguing in good faith based on how they view the evidence they know. (But that's not the same thing as thinking their view is right or that mainstream science is wrong.)

However, one thing to keep in mind is that this board has a deep history of YEC vs. mainstream discussion. Sometimes what would appear presumptuous in a de novo discussion must be understood in that broader historical context.

-Neil