Today was a good day for honesty in science!

[Brown Cat]

But macroevolution has been observed both in laboratories as well as in the field (in nature itself). Let me explain.

Macroevolution is defined as being evolution AT or above the species level. This means that speciation, the splitting of a single species into separate species, is a type of macroevolution. Nearly all of the major YEC organizations and spokespersons now acknowledge that speciation has taken place (AnswersinGenesis relies on a souped up version of it to explain the incredible diversity of life we observe today coming from Noah's Ark without the Ark being overcrowded).

There are even a few YECs who recognize this and concede that macroevolution indeed happens:

Todd Wood, YEC baraminologist, Director of the Center for Origins Research and an Associate Professor of Science at Bryan College

“First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.”

© source where applicable

Dr Leonard Brand, Geoscience Research Institute and Chair Professor of Loma Linda University Department of Earth and Biological Sciences

"Genesis does not seem to have anything to say against microevolution and, perhaps, even some macroevolution, at least to the development of new genera."

© source where applicable

Kurt Wise, Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College

“Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates."

© source where applicable

Thank you for this information. From your post and references I now see that there are different ways of defining macroevolution. Accepting your definition for the sake of argument, I would then have to say that I disagree as to "macroevolution's" extent and limitations.

[wattsr1]

... I would then have to say that I disagree as to "macroevolution's" extent and limitations.

It's often so that the evidence we use to show that microevolution as well as speciation has actually occurred (which is often accepted by creationists), is also the same evidence that is observed across the whole taxonomic classification of organisms, allowing us to infer that evolution has brought about all kinds of differences, not just very minor differences or small differences or differences that while not small, are not too large either.

[Brown Cat]

With respect to evangelical atheists. I understand what you are saying. I think that atheists have as much right to evangelise as do Christians. However, in the context of your following sentences with explain what you mean by the word, then I agree. But then we all have to worry about such folk. Nevertheless your side of the fence also has aggressive evangelists who would see nothing wrong in setting up a theocracy and banning all those who disagreed with them. I think potential Hitlers, Pol Pots and Stalins arise in all groups of people, not just mine.

I guess I need to be looking around more, because I really don't know who in Christendom wants to set up a theocracy and silence all those who disagree, (other than maybe a few crackpots on the fringe nobody listens to anyway). Especially in America we were the ones when our influence was greater, were the ones who allowed others with differing views to a large part, to openly express them. What appears more in evidence to me is that many of us, who would like to be allowed the same free expression of our views on a level playing field (of many publicly accessed areas), the atmosphere is becoming increasingly restrictive against the Christian religion.

I need to fear some militant aggressive atheists perhaps because they too see me as a fool for accepting religion as legitimate. You need to fear some militant aggressive Christians because they would likely examine your Christianity and see you as not a true Christian. What would your chances be if your faith were found to be false by some of these Christians?

For a time, the Roman Catholic Church went after those holding Reformation ideas with a vengeance, but they pretty much leave us alone any more. (They really still have an issue with my Sola Fide view of salvation.) I don't think I have to worry about them or any other groups in professing Christendom coming after me. But my faith has been declared to be false by some others, and they are not shy about saying so. Even so, I think our chances are extremely good that we will not completely disappear from existence.

[Jorge]

It's often so that the evidence we use to show that microevolution as well as speciation has actually occurred (which is often accepted by creationists),

I have often stated here that "microevolution" (as the word is commonly used)
and "speciation" (as per one definition) are indeed accepted by Biblical Creationists.
The 'fun' is when 'micro' is extrapolated into 'macro'. To do that, the realm of
science is abandoned (it must be!) and the realm of metaphysics is engaged.

This is the part that you people absolutely refuse to either acknowledge or accept.

is also the same evidence that is observed across the whole taxonomic classification of organisms, allowing us to infer that evolution has brought about all kinds of differences, not just very minor differences or small differences or differences that while not small, are not too large either.

Two (2) words : "NOT TRUE !!!"

The above statement from you - often repeated in one way or another
by essentially all members of the Evo-Faithful Flock - is simply an
expression of ideological belief, not science. By the admission
of your own Flock, macroevolution occurs over time periods that are
far too long to ever have been observed. We observe micro-changes;
we never observe macro-changes. Even when millions of generations
involving bacteria or fruit flies are observed, NEVER ONCE has a macro-
change been observed. It's like you people don't want to accept the
evidence in front of your own two eyes (no surprise there!).

You are a religious man, Roland ... filled with Faith;
part of a Faith-Filled Flock - the infamous F³.

Jorge

[pancreasman]

If only representatives of 'kinds' went onto the ark, don't YEC's have to accept high speed macroevolution after the flood? Say there were only representatives of cat kind. After the flood these have to diverge into every member of cat kind from domestic cats to lions.

[Carrikature]

What appears more in evidence to me is that many of us, who would like to be allowed the same free expression of our views on a level playing field (of many publicly accessed areas), the atmosphere is becoming increasingly restrictive against the Christian religion.

You have and have had the deck stacked in your favor for a very long time. The atmosphere is becoming increasingly restrictive, true, but that's only because of historical allowances above and beyond what was provided for. It's ironic when those who claim to desire a level playing field complain about it actually happening.

[wattsr1]

I have often stated here that "microevolution" (as the word is commonly used)
and "speciation" (as per one definition) are indeed accepted by Biblical Creationists.

Same evidence Jorge. For example, pseudogenes, transposons, nested hierarchies apply to both datasets.

The 'fun' is when 'micro' is extrapolated into 'macro'. To do that, the realm of
science is abandoned (it must be!) and the realm of metaphysics is engaged.

Really? So God, who the Bible says, causes rain to fall, frost to form, drought to occur, and who directly makes babies form and grow, does not make micro changes, he only does the biggies?

How did you work that one out Jorge? Are you there to see what God does and does not do?

This is the part that you people absolutely refuse to either acknowledge or accept.

Really - then you won't mind addressing the questions I ask above, will you.

Two (2) words : "NOT TRUE !!!"

That's about as far as you ever get Jorge. But you have no coherent philosophy of science, no understanding of its history, and utterly no understanding of the ideas you hate so much, to be able to go beyond "NOT TRUE". Well perhaps I'm wrong. You do manage to go further, but only with rants that look as if they have been poorly coloured by a kid with crayons.

The above statement from you - often repeated in one way or another
by essentially all members of the Evo-Faithful Flock - is simply an
expression of ideological belief, not science. By the admission
of your own Flock, macroevolution occurs over time periods that are
far too long to ever have been observed.

Heck, I never saw you write a post. I'll guess that no member of this forum did either. Therefore, since evidence does not count we can safely assert:-

"Jorge never wrote a post".

Jorge logic taken to its logical conclusion for you.

We observe micro-changes; we never observe macro-changes.

So, can you tell me who has actually ever directly observed one species change into another, in the wild Jorge?

Can you even tell me who has directly observed one sub species evolve from another in the wild?

You must be able to tell me, given that direct observation of a process in action is the criterion you go by.

Even when millions of generations involving bacteria or fruit flies are observed, NEVER ONCE has a macro-change been observed.

:Lol:

Even Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiment is only up to 50,000 generations, and that's after 20 years. So who has done this million generation one Jorge?

But you do realise that within one very, very small population of bacteria, after a mere 30,000 generations, Lenski and Co, got a messy gene duplication which, after a few thousand more generations turned into one population of E. coli that could metabolise citrate in the presence of oxygen. Something it could not do before.

Information added to the genome of that one population in a very tiny experiment.

It's like you people don't want to accept the evidence in front of your own two eyes (no surprise there!).

See my response above and let's see if you finally have the courage to address the points I do make, as opposed to running off again, as usual, as always.

You are a religious man, Roland ... filled with Faith; part of a Faith-Filled Flock - the infamous F³.

Jorge

If I had a deep faith I guess I could call it absolute truth that you really are brilliant.

[Brown Cat]

You have

Not so much as in years gone by, and the intimidation, ridicule and repression of the Christian world view is getting worse.

and have had the deck stacked in your favor for a very long time.

And what did we do, especially in America, but be tolerant (although not necessarily approve) of worldviews different from our own? Now that the shoe is being transferred to the other foot, we don't get the same tolerance in return.

The atmosphere is becoming increasingly restrictive, true, but that's only because of historical allowances above and beyond what was provided for.

And those historical allowances were such a bad thing? Especially in the free expression everyone enjoyed, and not just us?

It's ironic when those who claim to desire a level playing field complain about it actually happening.

If it were a level playing field it would be okay, but what you apparently call a level playing field is anything but.

Edited to Add:
I just now noticed this was my 666th post. Funny, I don't feel all that evil.

[Carrikature]

Not so much as in years gone by, and the intimidation, ridicule and repression of the Christian world view is getting worse.

Be more specific. There is ridicule and repression, sure, especially of concepts which insist scientists are all evil God-haters who want to supplant the Bible and will grasp at any straw to do so. There is ridicule and repression, sure, especially of those hypocrites who want to molest children (and I don't just mean the Catholic priest scandals). There is ridicule and repression of those who insist sexual preference is a choice and that certain people can be 'fixed' with the proper prayer and counseling. There is ridicule and repression of stupid ideas like natural disasters being God's punishment on a nation's wickedness. There's ridicule and repression of those who wish to bask in ignorance yet insist their beliefs be taught alongside rigorous testing. Let's be honest, though. There is no single Christian worldview being repressed and ridiculed. There are specific failings being brought to task. There are denominations that understand this and strive to compensate. For the most part, they are rewarded with ridicule from their fellow Christians. How's that for being tolerant?

And what did we do, especially in America, but be tolerant (although not necessarily approve) of worldviews different from our own? Now that the shoe is being transferred to the other foot, we don't get the same tolerance in return.

America has never been a tolerant country. There have been fights over every major cultural shift, and they continue today. "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't tolerance. Manifest Destiny isn't tolerance. Banning gay marriage isn't tolerance. Fighting against anything beyond abstinence-only sex education isn't tolerance. Don't kid yourself. What you see now is Christianity in America being held to the same standards every one else is. Want to pray in school? Fine, just don't prevent everyone else from praying to their god. Don't use government money to support your religion. Is that so hard? It shouldn't be.

Your own denomination doesn't even qualify as tolerant, though. Southern Baptists have long been infamous for not even allowing dancing. It was within the last few years that a kid was prevented from graduating because he went to a friend's prom. I was raised Southern Baptist. I know what it's like. Most of them aren't even tolerant of contemporary services. Tolerant? Please.

And those historical allowances were such a bad thing? Especially in the free expression everyone enjoyed, and not just us?

You have a funny definition of freedom of expression. "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't freedom of expression. Outcry against gay parades isn't celebrating other people's freedom of expression. Complaining about atheistic billboards isn't either.

If it were a level playing field it would be okay, but what you apparently call a level playing field is anything but.

I don't think you know what a level playing field is supposed to look like. Everyone at the same level means no restrictions on marriage. It means atheists being allowed to post billboards whenever they want. It means no government support of any religion. It means teaching facts about how the world works, not beliefs which stand in direct contradiction to the very technology that allows us to communicate. It means gender identity and gender preference not being a source of stigmatization. A level playing field is what the rest of us are working towards. Get over the persecution complex. You want to not be ridiculed? Prove yourself worthy of respect.

Let me be clear. This is in no way a personal attack. I don't know you, and I don't know what beliefs you do or do not hold for the most part. You've described yourself as a 'typical YEC layman'. That's fine with me. Just don't think that you should be allowed to say whatever you want without repercussions, or that it should hold equal footing with established facts. If there's a single greatest failing of American culture, I would be willing to bet the attitude of "everyone's opinion is worthwhile" is a big contender. I'm not singling you out, either. I'm guilty of it myself.

[wattsr1]

I guess I need to be looking around more, because I really don't know who in Christendom wants to set up a theocracy and silence all those who disagree, (other than maybe a few crackpots on the fringe nobody listens to anyway). Especially in America we were the ones when our influence was greater, were the ones who allowed others with differing views to a large part, to openly express them. What appears more in evidence to me is that many of us, who would like to be allowed the same free expression of our views on a level playing field (of many publicly accessed areas), the atmosphere is becoming increasingly restrictive against the Christian religion.

Well I guess it depends on context, locale, experience and ideas as to what constitutes unreasonableness.

I can only comment as an outsider, but I do get the impression that:-

1) In the US a person practically has to declare himself a Christian to be electable, and

2) Atheists are deemed to be worse than rapists.

That hardly sounds like a country that necessarily has an open mind towards folk of non-faith.

Take my country (Oz) as a counter example, we do from time to time elect atheists to Prime Ministership. In my lifetime we've had two openly avowed atheists as Prime Ministers. As far as I can tell, the population is generally as relaxed about atheists as it is about theists.

For a time, the Roman Catholic Church went after those holding Reformation ideas with a vengeance, but they pretty much leave us alone any more. (They really still have an issue with my Sola Fide view of salvation.) I don't think I have to worry about them or any other groups in professing Christendom coming after me. But my faith has been declared to be false by some others, and they are not shy about saying so. Even so, I think our chances are extremely good that we will not completely disappear from existence.

Is this in the US or are you talking about the wars of religion in Europe? Well there, the Catholics did go after the Protestants. However, it was also the case that Protestants could go after Catholics and even Protestants and Catholics could go after other Protestants.

But my faith has been declared to be false by some others, and they are not shy about saying so. Even so, I think our chances are extremely good that we will not completely disappear from existence.

I've found it to be the case that it's folk who see themselves as the true Christians who single others out. And this finger pointing seems to occur between Protestants as much as it does between Protestants and Catholics.

I have no figures to back this up. It's just something I've seen around the traps.

[Brown Cat]

Be more specific. There is ridicule and repression, sure, especially of concepts which insist scientists are all evil God-haters who want to supplant the Bible and will grasp at any straw to do so.

Wow, that is a lot you've thrown at me here. I was speaking specifically of governmental tolerance of American society towards atheistic and evolutionary viewpoints. You also brought up examples in some other areas that I was not speaking about.

Some scientists (not all) are evil God haters, and will do so.

There is ridicule and repression, sure, especially of those hypocrites who want to molest children (and I don't just mean the Catholic priest scandals). There is ridicule and repression of those who insist sexual preference is a choice and that certain people can be 'fixed' with the proper prayer and counseling.

There are certain actions (examined by God's Word and condemned as sinful and wrong) that I will believe to be true, and not apologize for. Tolerance is not always the same as acceptance.

There is ridicule and repression of stupid ideas like natural disasters being God's punishment on a nation's wickedness.

Those people should know their Bible better in that natural disasters (and all suffering) are the result of living in a cursed and fallen world. I would point out to such people that this is the case.

There's ridicule and repression of those who wish to bask in ignorance yet insist their beliefs be taught alongside rigorous testing.

As I stated in earlier posts there are a lot of us who question not the rigorous testing, but the materialistic worldview that in many instances influences such testing.

Let's be honest, though. There is no single Christian worldview being repressed and ridiculed.

Oh yes there is. Mine for example.

There are specific failings being brought to task. There are denominations that understand this and strive to compensate. For the most part, they are rewarded with ridicule from their fellow Christians. How's that for being tolerant?

Are you are speaking of Christian denominations that accept OE and TE viewpoints? Is our disagreement with them necessarily tantamount to ridicule?

America has never been a tolerant country.

We've never been perfect that's for sure (although what different people consider perfection is open to question). Yet compared to any other nation in history, IMO we are head and shoulders above everyone else.

There have been fights over every major cultural shift, and they continue today. "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't tolerance. Manifest Destiny isn't tolerance. Banning gay marriage isn't tolerance. Fighting against anything beyond abstinence-only sex education isn't tolerance. Don't kid yourself. What you see now is Christianity in America being held to the same standards every one else is. Want to pray in school? Fine, just don't prevent everyone else from praying to their god. Don't use government money to support your religion. Is that so hard? It shouldn't be.

You and I know that some things are just wrong; we disagree on some of those things. As I said, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Prayer in schools (to the God of the Bible) had more meaning in days past. Now that we're living in a post-Christian age it doesn't as much.
But I guess it must be okay to use government money to support the religion of secular humanism instead.

Your own denomination doesn't even qualify as tolerant, though. Southern Baptists have long been infamous for not even allowing dancing. It was within the last few years that a kid was prevented from graduating because he went to a friend's prom. I was raised Southern Baptist. I know what it's like. Most of them aren't even tolerant of contemporary services. Tolerant? Please.

Since you were Southern Baptist at one time, surely you remember the reasons why dancing was frowned upon. Something to do with trying to prevent sex before marriage, illegitimate children and ruined lives? Although I wasn't raised Southern Baptist, I also did experience, and speak against, a shallowness of Bible teaching in churches I attended that did not teach essential facts and truths as they should have and as a result many in the SBC membership have apostasized and will continue to do so.

Also, when it comes to contemporary services, what the content is determines its appropriateness. Is it truly meant to worship God or is it primarily for self-gratification?

I don't think you know what a level playing field is supposed to look like. Everyone at the same level means no restrictions on marriage. It means atheists being allowed to post billboards whenever they want. It means no government support of any religion.

Allow me to remind you that my point in my earlier post was about governmental tolerance, which is being increasingly tilted against Christians.

It means teaching facts about how the world works, not beliefs which stand in direct contradiction to the very technology that allows us to communicate.

Once again, there's that logical fallacy making operational science the same as origins science.

It means gender identity and gender preference not being a source of stigmatization. A level playing field is what the rest of us are working towards. Get over the persecution complex. You want to not be ridiculed? Prove yourself worthy of respect.

If I am to be ridiculed and someday persecuted by Big Brother, so be it. If I am to be persecuted as to my religious beliefs, I am called to become ready for that as well. As Paul said in Romans 3:4, "let God be true and every man a liar". Christ's apostles told the Sanhedrin "We must obey God rather than men" in response to the Sanhedrin's command to cease preaching in Jesus' name (Acts 5:29). If worse comes to worse, Big Brother knocks down my door and drags me to prison, don't feel too comfortable. You may well be next.

Let me be clear. This is in no way a personal attack. I don't know you, and I don't know what beliefs you do or do not hold for the most part. You've described yourself as a 'typical YEC layman'. That's fine with me. Just don't think that you should be allowed to say whatever you want without repercussions,

I fully expect repercussions to come; it goes with the territory. And it has often been true that the popular and majority opinion hasn't always been the correct one.

or that it should hold equal footing with established facts.

"Established facts" IMO are not always that established.

If there's a single greatest failing of American culture, I would be willing to bet the attitude of "everyone's opinion is worthwhile" is a big contender. I'm not singling you out, either. I'm guilty of it myself.

Thank you for expressing your honest opinions.

[Brown Cat]

Well I guess it depends on context, locale, experience and ideas as to what constitutes unreasonableness.

I can only comment as an outsider, but I do get the impression that:-

1) In the US a person practically has to declare himself a Christian to be electable, and

2) Atheists are deemed to be worse than rapists.

That hardly sounds like a country that necessarily has an open mind towards folk of non-faith.

1) Increasingly, that is becoming more of a non-factor in certain areas of the US.

2)I really don't see that, but I think that's best determined that on a case by case basis.

We do like our personal freedoms here. I'm okay with atheists being allowed to say what they will but I want the same freedom as well. Judicial decisions have effectively circumvented the First Amendment which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Freedom of religion has often been judicially interpreted and imposed as freedom from religion.

Take my country (Oz) as a counter example, we do from time to time elect atheists to Prime Ministership. In my lifetime we've had two openly avowed atheists as Prime Ministers. As far as I can tell, the population is generally as relaxed about atheists as it is about theists.

As an outsider to your country, I can't really comment about that. Maybe someday I'll have the pleasure of visiting Australia.

Is this in the US or are you talking about the wars of religion in Europe? Well there, the Catholics did go after the Protestants. However, it was also the case that Protestants could go after Catholics and even Protestants and Catholics could go after other Protestants.

I've found it to be the case that it's folk who see themselves as the true Christians who single others out. And this finger pointing seems to occur between Protestants as much as it does between Protestants and Catholics.

I have no figures to back this up. It's just something I've seen around the traps.

That's a correct observation that I missed. Some Protestants proved themselves no better than RCC persecutors when they did the same thing. I can only say that sometimes "Protestant" doesn't always equal "genuine Christianity". The New Testament teaches that heretics are at worst to be excommunicated, not burned at the stake or subjected to some other form of torture.

[Lemmy]

We do like our personal freedoms here. I'm okay with atheists being allowed to say what they will but I want the same freedom as well. Judicial decisions have effectively circumvented the First Amendment which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Freedom of religion has often been judicially interpreted and imposed as freedom from religion.

Can you explain more what you mean here? I've often heard this argument, but am failing to see it fully, I believe.

Here is my read on the establishment clause: the US government cannot, as specified, endorse or inforce a specific religious viewpoint to the exclusion of others. In essence, for the purpose of constitutional law, no religious belief is inherently "better" than another, and the individual is free to find their own beliefs, even including a lack of belief.

When I hear "freedom from religion", I interpret that to mean a freedom from any law enforcing a specific religious position. I assume in your argument, it means something else.

[JonF]

There's many people in the US who believe that "freedom of religion" does not mean separation of church and state. These people believe that "freedom of religion" means that the US government should be explicitly Christian, uphold Christian ideals and Biblical laws, and if you don't like it move to Morocco. This movement is fueled by right-wing loony tunes such as David Barton, Glenn Beck, Howard Abramson, and a host of others. I don't know how many people are in such groups but they're awfully loud and there seem to be enough of them to pose a threat to our existing governmental structures.

[wattsr1]

There's many people in the US who believe that "freedom of religion" does not mean separation of church and state. These people believe that "freedom of religion" means that the US government should be explicitly Christian, uphold Christian ideals and Biblical laws, and if you don't like it move to Morocco. This movement is fueled by right-wing loony tunes such as David Barton, Glenn Beck, Howard Abramson, and a host of others. I don't know how many people are in such groups but they're awfully loud and there seem to be enough of them to pose a threat to our existing governmental structures.

Heh. I don't know how relevant this remains, but it's an example of what you are referring to I guess:-

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337629

It would appear that the Senator behind this bill (and his many supporters?) believe in "persecuting" others who don't hold to their beliefs - "Wot? You don't accept there is a God? To jail with you m'boy."