As you can see Herman, one of the main reasons why evolutionists reject YEC’s scientific predictions, is not so much scientific as political, and above all it is a question of who is allowed to determine the content of textbooks in schools!
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”
So long as Jeanson is signing on to this as a contractual condition of his employment then he is not doing science. I would like to see him challenge the teaching of creationism in US public schools. This will be the first place any good lawyer will go.
I laughed out loud the first time I read that particular passage, a few years ago. It’s just absurd. They are proposing that humans (or perhaps only human males??) have a sixth sense whereby we can identify and distinguish different “kinds” innately.
If that’s the case then my “cognitum” puts “kind” at the level of carnivorans. Therefore, all carnivorans share a common ancestor. My “cognitum” also puts “kind” at the level of great apes. Therefore, all great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor. My “cognium” also puts “kind” at the level of theropods. Therefore, avian and non-avian theropods share a common ancestor.
Of course their model is ultimately unfalsifiable because any deficiencies or disagreements are clearly the result of The Fall and Loss Of Information and Sin Nature. Adam, of course, had a perfect “cognitum” and could tell exactly which birds were different kinds and which ones were not, they say.
But their model isn’t actually supported even if you read Genesis 2. It didn’t say Adam was able to distinguish between kinds; it said God brought the animals to Adam and Adam gave them names. I always wondered how God got basking sharks into the Garden of Eden.
Precisely. And there’s nothing in Genesis which suggests that the animals brought to Adam for naming were separated at the level of kinds. For all Jeanson’s talk of created heterozygosity, God still could have created populations with heterozygosity and diverse phenotype. For example, he could have created a heterozygous super-cat with a lion phenotype AND a heterozygous super-cat with a Siamese phenotype, and had Adam name both.
Round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows.
No, it’s because YEC is nonscience.
This is just a humorous aside but worth chuckling over.
I drove down into Virginia this past weekend and my wife was playing a sermon on the radio in the hopes it would lull the kids to sleep (this hope was successfully realized). The sermon was some KJV-only independent fundamental Baptist preacher pontificating about dispensationalism and the impending apocalypse. He was reviewing Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar II’s Dream of the Image, where the king saw a great statue with a head of gold, chest of silver, belly of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of clay. Daniel explains that the different materials represent different kingdoms in the future, with the golden head of Babylon to be replaced by the silver of Persia, then by the bronze of Greece, then by the iron of Rome.
This bit from the preacher was particularly amusing:
“Now one thing you will notice is that as you move down the statue, in time, the materials become less and less valuable! Silver is not worth as much as gold, and bronze is not worth as much as silver, and so on all the way to dirt! And so the kingdoms that have ruled this world have become less and less powerful as time went on! This is a strike against the evolutionists, who would have us believe that everything gets better and better over time. But the word of God says that the devices and inventions of humans only get worse and worse!”
I couldn’t contain my laughter.
6 posts were split to a new topic: Motivations of YECs
Thus postcreationists, in their attempts to show scientific rigor, unwittingly uncover the very mechanisms that prove the opposite of their model. If they cannot identify a barrier to a modern species producing descendants which would by their method appear to descend from different original kinds , they cannot effectively argue that two species they currently consider to represent distinct kinds might not have originally diversified from a single ancestral clade
This is not their job to show a “barrier” its evolutions job to show the level of variation from a single cell is feasible including all innovation observed.
You are simply shifting the burden which makes the theory your defending look weak.
These models are not that different. They are simply testing different evolutionary starting points.
This has already been done for decades Bill. Any decent college level biology or genetics text will give you the details. You’re the one claiming there’s some magic barrier which prevents evolution above the family level. Since you can’t demonstrate this barrier you’re just one more loony preaching to the streetlamp.
You’re kidding, right?
Creationists are the ones who are claiming that life exists in “kinds” that are unrelated by genetic ancestry. OK. What are those kinds? How do you delimit them? Show me.
Those aren’t my claims. I’m merely reiterating the science that has accumulated over a century that says that life shares a common ancestry. It’s the best available explanation for the evidence. Under that conclusion you wouldn’t expect there to be anything resembling “kinds” and there isn’t.
If creationists think “kinds” are real then they should clearly be able to delimit them. They can’t. Beyond a few misleading arguments based on cherry picked data or more often just their own intuitions they’ve made no efforts to delimit the created “kinds” they insist exist.
You may be right. Can you reconcile a molecular MtDNA clock against your model? What I have seen from @swamidass comparing rats and mice plus chimps and humans this could be comparing the same kind. The acid test is can you reconcile fish and primates for instance? Or even mice and humans against the predicted split time. Does rate times time equal distance for the tree or do you get into conflicts.
Again, none of this is my model Bill, it’s the best available science accumulated over a century. mtDNA clocks are based on neutral substitution rates not de novo mutation rates. Additionally common ancestry doesn’t hinge on one and only one bit of data but is a conclusion drawn from multiple independent lines of evidence. There’s not a single mtDNA “acid test” for common ancestry.
You will find that it is YEC’s who reject the predictions made by YEC. For example, we shouldn’t see a depletion of short lived radionuclides if the Earth is young. Want to test that prediction? We also shouldn’t see any stars further away than 10,000 light years. Want to test that prediction?
Both models utilize common ancestry.
No they do not. Creationism for religious reasons just confines common ancestry within these arbitrary created kinds that they have no way of delimiting and they reject any common ancestry outside of those bounds that their religious beliefs have defined.
Said another way, the claim you support is that life has a single origin and all life is related by ancestry. This is an extremely difficult position to support given the current level of molecular evidence available.
…says virtually no professional scientist outside of those with a religious agenda.
Baby steps Bill. Just take humans and other primates for example. It’s clear that common ancestry explains their diversity better than separate creation.
How about all birds? Again, clear case of common ancestry. Birds and non-avian dinosaurs? Common ancestry. All fruit flies of the members of the family Drosophilidae? Common ancestry, and if creationists accept that case of common ancestry they are accepting more diversity in the context of common ancestry than exist between humans and non-human apes.
Want to keep going? How about all mammals? Common ancestry. How about all vertebrates? Common ancestry. What about all animals? Common ancestry.
So there is enormous evidence for common ancestry among very divergent organisms. If we can at least get you to accept that accepting universal common ancestry isn’t far behind.
I mean really there is only one organism where creationists are concerned about common ancestry and that is humans. Once they accept humans and non-human animals share a common ancestor there really is no longer any barrier for them accepting the rest of it.
Let’s start with step one. What did the original common ancestor look like? Was it a prokaryotic cellular structure or a eukaryotic cell structure or something more primitive either of these. Or could the proper hypothesis be two separate origin events?
The UCD hypothesis is iffy right out of the gate based on the molecular evidence.
It’s alternately amusing and offensive, the way you try to engage with professional scientists on this board as if you are their intellectual equal. A bit of humility would stand you better.
I think you are confusing what step one is here. Let’s start with humans and chimps. Then we can go to African apes and pongidae. Then greater and lesser apes. Then apes and the cercopithecoidea. Then simian primates and prosimians. Then primates and rodents. Then keep going. Placental mammals and marsupials. Monotremes, mammal-like synapsid reptiles, basal amniotes, amphibians, sarcopterygian fishes, etc. etc. etc.
Common ancestry keeps explaining diversity as you go and separate ancestry just fails and is exposed for the religious assertion it is every single time.