Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

Only insofar as the validity of evolution removes one of the more popular arguments for the existence of God. "Meme" simply refers to an idea which passes from person to person. There is ample evidence for their existence: the question is whether there is a good analogy between memes and genes. I think not: memes which pass by vertical transmission (parents to children) are like genes; those which pass by horizontal transmission (amongst a peer group) are more like viruses. Not according to its proponents."Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." --- Of Pandas And People

No.

Au contraire. The reason the creationists tried this little stunt was that the witnesses for the prosecution in the Dover Pandas Trial explicitly said that they would have no objection to students studying the philosophical aspects of ID; what they onjected to was students being taught rubbishy creationist pseudoscience.So of course, the creationists, who could give corkscrews a lesson in being twisty, decided to teach the same old pseudoscience but to call it philosophy.Now reciting the standard fundie nonsense about, to take one example, the laws of thermodynamics, is not a philosophy any more than it's science. It's telling lies to children.

Well, how about a third option which makes more sense than either?We call it "evolution".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

---

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell

Neither. Evolution happened by the action of natural selection on random mutation.If you know about natural selection, what does your question mean?

Your tactic is a common one: declare that your own particular pick-n-mix of creationist nonsense is the One True Creationism, and that anyone arguing against any different version doesn't understand creationism.The fact is that while half of creationists argue that observing the origin of species supports creationism rather than the Origin of Species, the other half are still pretending that no new species have been observed: including, for example, the Institute for Creation Research.Anyone debating a specific creationist has to debate his version of creationism, not yours.

So, the ICR can't even tell one consistent story.So their website claims both that diversification of species exists and is a problem for Darwinism (very funny, I'm not surprised they don't supply any reasoning) and that "Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study."And you pays your money, and you takes your choice.Their own propaganda material is split half-and-half. You picked the version that suited you. If you don't know what it means to falsify a hypothesis, I suggest that you learn before employing the term.My claim that different creationists have different views on the subject would not, of course, be falsified by the observation that some of them have similar views.Any more than the claim that humans come in two sexes would be falsified by observing that several of them were men.Sheesh, you guys and logic ...The fact that you have declared your version to be Real Proper Creationism is evident from your posts.The fact that you were wrong about the ICR is merely the icing on your humble pie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Was that reply computer-generated or something?The only bit that seems relevant to the title is the phrase "A certain way that these points are responded to however can show that diversification of species IS a problem within this question for Darwinism", but this merely restates the claim.Try again. How does the origin of species contradict the Origin of Species?

So, will you now show how the origin of species contadicts the Origin of Species?Your call.

I just want you to answer the question. How does observing speciation contradict the theory of evolution?

I question your use of the words "the" and "scientific". Percival William Davis is an American author, a young earth creationist, and activist in the intelligent design movement.According to his author biography, Davis received a bachelor of arts in zoology from DePauw University, master of arts in zoology from Columbia University, Master's degree at Columbia University and the University of South Florida in zoology, ecology and physiology. He was a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida beginning in 1968.The term "intelligent design" came into general usage following the publishing of a 1989 book called Of Pandas and People co-authored by Davis and Dean H. Kenyon.... Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966 he became Assistant Professor at San Francisco State University until 1969.(Facts from Wikipedia)These are the people who are ignorant of "the" YEC position, eh?

Why not start a thread stating your argument re isotopes and fossils, and see if the moderators will let you debate it? They will; and I shall be happy to correct your more egregious mistakes.There is nothing in Percy's post from beginning to end to suggest that no-one should debate in favor of ID; though the argument you're presenting, I should point out, is not in fact an argument for ID, but against geology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.