Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

Kent Hovind was against putting I.D. into schools.Same with Carl Baugh.AnwsersinGenesis was also opposed to it,and are infact so tired of the false accusations that they are hiring a P.R. firm just to make sure that everybody knows they were and are against it.Old Earth "creationists" like Hugh Ross and Rhana also strongly opposed it. Misrepresented (Sigh) Time and Time Again | Answers in Genesis These were isolated decisions by people in SOME districts.Most people dont even understand Creationism (I didnt till recently). You have I.D. supporters debating Ron Reagan and neither understands the issue.Ron Reagan used evidence that Creationism was false by saying "we have seen new species created" and his debating opponent couldnt respond to him.Honestly, that say it all.The evry evidence Reagan used was evidence Creationists use to support their theory.Neither Reagan or his "Creationist" guest (just a small town preacher)had a clue.

I remember reading an article about new plant species on their site.The article clearly indicated that they believe that many new plant species came into being by "loss of genetic information".ICR and Anwsers In Genesis are almost(if not) identicle in basic beliefs.There was an interesting article(which I cant find) about 2 species of plants coming together into 1 new hybrid specie.Their point was that the "kind" the 2 seperate species were from (from creation)split into seperate species then the new hybrid was a result of the 2 species coming back together, or forming a newer variety.I cant find it but here are some links (I used their search engine) showing articles(10 per page)related to speciation.Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research
There is new evidence that members of some species (including the famous peppered moth) may actually "choose" environments suitable for their trait combinations.6 If "habitat choice" behavior were created (and did not have to originate by time, chance, and random mutations!), it would reduce the genetic burden that results when only one trait expression is "fittest," and it would also greatly accelerate the process of diversification within species.Research and new discoveries have made it increasingly easy for creationists to account for phenomenal species diversification within short periods of time. These same discoveries have only magnified problems in orthodox neo-Darwinian thinking. It is encouraging, but not surprising, therefore, that an increasing number of students and professionals in science are accepting the creation model as the more logical inference from scientific observations and principles. shortened linkanother long linkNew Animal Species | The Institute for Creation ResearchI didnt read too many(will later) but I can assure you that any "scientific" YEC will believe in rapid speciation.Here are sample article titles (in links above)On the Changing Defintion of the Term "Species" (#211)Species --?? A Most Elusive Subject (#200304)Im sure most here understand the concept, but in short the YEC position is that created "kinds" had a HUGE amount of genetic data (picture the genetic data for every dog breed being present in a single proto-dog which also happens to have wolve,coyote, fox , etc. genetic data)which then "evolved" by becoming isolated from one another and then having pups which survived in their environment by selecting certain genetic features.The YEC view is that only a certain genetic strain would survive in various environments and all the rest would die out.The "dead dogs" would select out (erase or severely reduce) all the genetic variety.YECs believe all cases of evolution are due to a loss of genetic data.They claim that observation has shown just that and only that.I dunno about the larger issue.On to the petty issue.......But I do know that the accusation that *I* selected (artifical or natural...j/k) my "tactic" and "declared that"... my "own particular pick-n-mix of creationist nonsense" based on the The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research example hypothesied has been scientifically falsified based on the evidence.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Morris founded the organization and he(or his father,I cant remember) was the one who made YEC a debatable issue with the Genesis Flood book(I never read it fyi/btw) Based on some other things you have said, it seems like you maybe should spend some time understanding the YEC position.The Flood (for example) seems to be a hot topic around here.Here is the best page for all kinds of relevent data on the best Creationism presentation of debatable flood "evidence" in various fields. (my favorite it the topic section "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?" which has lots of interesting data and links. Notice that the often repeated claim that "Australians didnt have a flood legend" is falsified. The Chinese issue is really interesting.) The Flood | Answers in Genesis Notice on the bottom, the various other links that lead to further article link pages devoted to special genres.Like the Ark FAQs Noah’s Ark | Answers in Genesis There is also Fossil and Geology FAQs.Here is the broad FAQs links. Answers | Answers in Genesis All FAQs lead to journal article links (Creationish mostly but not always) and detailed data. Answers | Answers in Genesis Maybe the discussion would be better if you simply started a topic/thread based on certain large AIG data pages (like the Flood topics)then quoted and responded to each and every detail.This back and go on fragmented,and petty, hair split debates just to say "gotcha" isnt very informative.I almost think (I am naive,true)that if most threads/posts were disciplined, orderly, and persistent (meaning that EVERY AIG article is responded to) with nothing but detailed quote and responce of AIG (which I use as an example of a Creationist organization that has over a dozen full time PhD contributors),then they,and othe rlike minded folk, would be forced to join the discussion in defense.I suggested already that people watch Baughs T.V. show every week and respond to each and every point.I have noticed that every little minor thing I say around (to top it all off-on Creation/ Evolution issues,Im non-partisan too) here attracts various attempts at hair-splitting debates.Plus more than a few flat out smart a$$ responce posts at times,*AND* for actual Creationists,its 10 times as many "responces" are matched for every lackluster post.If people are THAT hungry for debate then my advice is to follow my suggestions above.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I agree.BUT.......I do get amazed at all the very very *small* things some want to debate over.LOL I simply made a minor correction that really wasnt much of an opinion but a fact.People need to learn the difference between a factual report (free of spin)and a comment that is reflective of ones opinion.I seen people spend 30+ posts debating whether a single sentence (another poster made) meant one nuanced variation and stretch of the English language or another.I have seen people openly wish that there were more Creationists to debate here.In older posts I have read and newer ones.I cant help but offer people suggestions when I find myself in "debates" over non-opinionated and generally skinny posts I make.I know its rude to give advice when you arent asked.However...The fact that you are asking a non-Creationist to defend Creationism seems to me part of the problem.If I made a post based on an AIG article, then it would be "spam".I would be trying to generate discussion on an issue Im not a partisan on.And I wouldnt participate much.Instead,I find myself dragged into some "debate" over Creationism time and time again for just rearing my head.Honestly, I want to see everybody happy here.I hate to crap on peoples parade or be a big sour-pus.I just have no dog in this fight.But I really feel for people when they lament the fact that they cant find Creationists to debate.Heck,if I were you guys, I would give Creationism a crutch.Quote their articles then respond to them,again heck...even help nudge on counter-arguments(ie put words in their mouths)to jump-start participants.Its not like anybodys hunger for debate isnt ALREADY putting word in others mouths (like me).I like reading the discussion here, but many possible (lurking)Creationist debaters will get lost in-between the petty stuff tht fills 90% of posts in threads.Im not saying this place is substance free.To the contrary, it is one of the most detailed places around (especially compared to other sites).But, there needs to be some way to have threads that respond to specific Creationist articles (the more up to date one, not the same rehashed old issues), and are free of boastful posts, 1 liners ,petty side discussion (like this), insluts , fishing expeditions , 30+ post blather fests in-between detailed discussion, etc.Honestly, I wouldnt be giving me 2 cents if not for the obvious debate-harvesting attempt that is performed on anybody who even smells like a Christian and (gasp) a Creationist.There are more fertile fields to graze.

My point was that the Ark and Noahs Flood is the one reason why "The Species/Kinds" issue is such an important one to YECs.A YEC must support the branching of new species POST-Creation due to the limited Ark space and other issues involved related to the "millions of species issue".While that is the ultimate motive....I also,however think that DNA is another reason they support such a position.They honestly seem to make a powerful case that all the variation(evolution) we see is minor and caused by a loss of information not an addition of info.I watched a debate with Carl Wieland where he actually helped the Evolutionist out and suggested (when the evolutionist couldnt respond very good to the "we only see loss of information" issue)something like "I actually may disagree with my Creationist friends somewhat and point out that there MAY infact be *one* case where there is possible addition of genetic information".But he didnt have time to say what it was.The Fossil and geology issues I linked to ties in.

If people here dont know the basic fact, by now, that YEC's (those that base it on the YEC scienific model, not layperson YEC's) believe in significant diversification of species then maybe I should make you back up every other word in each of your posts.Give me the complete etymology of every last word you typed in message #130 so I can be sure that you have every last detail correct in you basic statement.Let me repeat what I said that caused such controversy.I said that every significant Creationist (specifically YEC's)opposes Intelligent Design teaching requirments.I was refering to those who have scientific credentials (including but not limited to AIG and by extension I implied ICR)plus I threw in the opinions of Hovind and Baugh as well since they are prominent YEC's though they have no degrees.I linked to AnwsersInGenesis since they have about 20 PhD's writing for them( and almost all the rest of open YECs with PhDs generally write for ICR, but it is far fewer)here is the link again (VERY IMPORTANT...get a reading ..it is THE thing to read in this thread) Misrepresented (Sigh) Time and Time Again | Answers in Genesis Future responces should be on the substance of the AIG position and its implication for teaching standards. (praying)I also mentioned the opposition of the 2 most prominent OEC's Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.Here is their BiographyPage not found - Reasons to BelieveHere is Hugh Ross discussing I.D. and school requirments
Page not found - Reasons to BelieveHere is a link to a site trashing Fuz Rana and Creationists of all types.It also links to a Christian article discussing Rhana's position.I cant find the actual text of Rhana's announcment though. I seem to remember reading it 4 or 5 months ago whn it was fresh.Page not found · GitHub PagesMaybe we need to move past the petty details of how exactly I worded my initial post.I will,however, make a Mea Culpa that hopefully makes the nit pickers happy once and for all (till I make another basic post at midnight saying "its dark outside" without full scientific backing and documentation).I DO ADMIT that there may be a YEC out there that wants Intelligent Design taught,and maybe would even want teachers to be forced to do so.I would imagine that they wouldnt know much about the general YEC Creation Model though.I will even admit that there could be, and surely are,plenty of OECs who support such a position.OEC=Progressive Creationism generally except Gap Theory folks.Im sure several Theistic Evolutionists would.I also admit that the isolated school board decisions, in the odd town here and there,have a VERY confused issue with very confused players in the debate.And very confused reporting on WHO exactly supports (and to a lesser extent, who opposes)the I.D. teaching requirements.However, since YEC's are the subject, I will just say that most strongly oppose requiring teachers to teach any form of Creationism out of fear that it will only lead to a teacher(the non-Creationists types especially anti-Bible types)having a platform for trashing the Bible which would clearly be made a subject of discussion.Now.Are we finally o.k. after 30+ posts?Can we get to the meat and bones RESULTS (imagined results since the current standards arent exactly 100% identical to their preferences) of the larger YEC position (lets use AIG as the general reps) on Science classroom standards?Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I was just trying to remind people what I posted at first, before all the "cross your T's" stuff came up, disguised as a responce to some imaginary debate I started.I made a blanket statement in my first post.And it was generally true. Creation already can be taught by teachers (I suppose there is a small chance of a student telling his parents and then a protest).Evolution can generally be criticised (though there have been examples of teachers getting fired for showing the results of research from current science journals as a means of questioning the textbook).Teachers can even talk about God if they are asked about him/it.Interesting thing on Geology I was exposed to in the 5th grade.I remember back when I was in public school that teachers would have us shake some sort of sealed water container(looked like an ant farm)full of dirt and sediments and then let us see all the layers form when everything settled.Honestly I didnt know it had anything to do with God (who wasnt mentioned) or a global flood (maybe the teacher wanted us to feel that local floods formed the geo-strata,I have no clue),but I think that many students were exposed to this type of technique.I say that because when I moved to a different part of the state (Maryland), students asked our 8th grade Science (her specialty,unlike the 5th grade teacher) teacher about those "shaky things" (I forget what they were called), when Geology was discussed, and the teacher got angry and,while not mentioning the Flood(I dont think any teacher ever specifically said anything about the Flood), she said something to the effect that the view was outdated and old. Either you havnt been listening,or you dont have enough information.Or both. (I also fit the description of the latter)The dont want Creationism of any type taught.Hopefully, their position will be made clear soon (Im refering to the PR firm),if it hasnt already.Generlly, Creationists (not as a group) will want more up to date material presented from mainstream journals.The "scheme", if there is any, is to show that aspects of evolution arent cast in stone.The issue is far more complicated than it sounds (Creationists position on teaching requirments).Putting aside the issue of Creationism (sort of), I can tell you that most Christians, who are of an evangelical mindset, relly really (REALLY) dont want Genesis 1-11 to come up very often unless in the company of Christians who are educated on theological, linguistic , and (to a lesser extent) scientific issues.In private conversations and especially schools.I dont think you have to worry about evangelical Christians (especially ones who have degrees in Science fields) trying to ram Creationism into schools.Or even to allow the issue to slip in.

My DVD player is busted,and my computer has a slow connection.If my DVD players worked,then I could easily get the information.http://creation.allinwonder.org/But on Seminar 7 (right near the start),Hovind gives names and phone numbers(the video version shows it)of teachers who have had troubles usually resulting in disciplinary actions like termination.Since this ex-teacher is an evolutionist,I dont think he and Hovind ever spoke.So his phone number may not be avaliable.There is only 1 example of where I ever heard of this type of thing: (Hovind provides info)being a firing for showing up to date information.Perhaps an isolated case.Before anybody goes crazy, by virtue of mentioning Hovind, keep in mind that he generally provides phone numbers of the people in question.

...a teacher can "anwser" almost any question that a student asks.If a teacher teachers evolution in a critical (or mocking) way then Im sure the issue of alternatives can and will come up.Not official school board material, infact quite un-official.But teachers have great freedom in giving their own views.The Status Quo of public school policies in the USA is generally what Creationists prefer.It mostly protects Christianity or Creationism from being bashed (or even coming up)by non-Christian teachers.The way Evolution is presently taught, in (U.S.of)American public schools, almost gurantees that students wont ever think of it having anything to do with the issue of the Bible.It is sort of a wall of protection for students from non-Christian(and non-Jew,etc.)teachers.But then,if the teacher is a Creationist, then the teacher can discuss the Science text book's material however he or she wants to.Teachers arent there in classrooms to just to read from the textbooks.Their commentary (critical and non-critical)is what makes them what they are.

Better fix those reading glasses.Day one"let there be light".Day 4 described the plants using the developed Earths seasons,sunlight filtering, and other natural Earthbound effects.I have already challenged Bible critics (many endless times here and on other sites) to collect ALL ancient texts,especially Mesopotamian ones(which are claimed to be prototypes of Genesis)and show me that ancients were ignorant of where light came from.Im still waiting.You would think they could at least take a few selective Ancient texts(preferably from 1000s of years BCE) totally out of context,ignoring what else is out there, but they havnt even done that.O well.People simply believe what they want it seems.Facts and documentation be damned.Keep beating the same old busted drum.Nimrod Then you think Creationism should be taught in schools then? Because AIG does not.

Well a bunch of consecutive "ands".3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Then see what day 3 said after plants were described." 13And the evening and the morning were the third day."Now,listen closely to day 4.14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."I think all the "ands" were consecutive grammatical "ands". I forget.Im not too dogmatic on what I consider poetic ellegorical script.But if the day and night were made possible by the Sun and stars then it seems that they were there on day 1.Then.You are saying Genesis 1 is from a Greek source? LOL this should be interesting.I must admit I have no clue what you are refering to.Is the 2nd "myth" refering to Dilmun?Post it on this threadhttp://EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 -->EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1On the AIG issue, I can assure you that I know you disagree with their scientific views.The issue I was talking about (which you quoted) was refering to their views on what should be taught in public schools.