Does Aig defend, to a point, evolution?
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today? AIG thinks this is not a valid question to ask. Here is their response to it.
| In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they dont believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this pussyfooting, as he called it. He said, In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, mans ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
Its important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionistscreationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?
So whats the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (races) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of letters of new information. Reference: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp |
Can Natural Selection be used in creation? AIG seems to think so. Here's what they say about this that is found on the same web page:
| Natural selection as tautology. Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and cant explain how motors work.) it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesnt happen. Of course the environment can select, just as human breeders select. Of course demonstrating this doesnt mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means the real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation. |
Natural Selection is a useful tool in explaining creation? Theistic evolution (those who believe God created life using evolution) at it's best. Evolutionist coined the phrase Natural Selection. So when ever this phrase is used to explain creation, it will always point to evolution. And will always leave the door open for evolution to enter the mind of those who are weak in the faith. Now, just to show how evolutionists are really good at covering things up. I just came across some evidence that Darwin plagiarized the idea of Natural Selection. You can read about this at the bottom of this page.
Then to cover up for what was just said, right underneath that evolution is given a bad time (not to bad though). Nice cover AIG. By doing this, they are trying to stay balanced. Not to make either side to mad. but in the process giving the enemy a mouth piece, and a chance to be considered. Does the enemy do like wise? They know better than to do that. Which makes me wonder the point for why AIG would do this. For God's word says: Your either for me, or against me... Which means there is no middle ground.
| Evolution is just a theory. What people usually mean when they say this is Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word theory in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Newtons Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the DebyeHückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the DeryaginLandau/VerweyOverbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. |
Are there really any transitional forms? AIG leaves the door open for the possibility. Why would a YEC site do this? Here's what was said:
| There are no transitional forms. Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, its better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples. |
That was a very nice debunk at best. So AIG wants to leave the door open for possibility of transitional forms... And says Natural Selection can be used to explain creation? Things are starting to add up.
Remember, all this info is on one page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
New info has come my way:
|
The idea for natural selection was actually thought up by an ardent creationist, Edward Blyth. Even some evolutionists, believe Darwin plagiarized Blyth on this. You can read more about this here: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm I searched for this info on the AIG website. If it's there, I cannot find it. But because evolutionist, including Darwin, want everyone to think it's a Darwin coined phrase, it makes me wonder why AIG does not include this info on their site? For when ever Natural Selection is used, it should be made clear that it was not Darwin's original idea. And Darwin never give Blyth credit for his own idea. But more or less claims it as his own by not telling where he got the idea from. And many people, including myself, have been duped into believing it was his idea. Maybe AIG did not know. But with all the info that they have, and all the creationists they have working for them, I find that very doubtful. To over look such an important fact still points into one direction. Why?
AIG uses Natural Selection, as an explanation for some of creation, but never explains why? Which makes me think that they do know, but would rather leave the readers in the dark unless they are asked point blank on this. It leaves them with an excuse as to why this is done. But for everyone else who does not ask, they go away from their site with the coined plagiarized phrase supporting evolution as a part of creation. |
Make sure to click next at the bottom of this page to continue.
