One of the most arrogant questions I see the geneticist ask is, "What is the application for YEC in science?" This question is based on the assumption that any kind of study in genetics automatically falls onto the evolution side, simply because it is interpreted into an evolutionary paradigm. Genetic variation is just that--and it is in the present. Because YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, and naturalistic evolution all present an assumed history on the data, none can usurp a claim of ownership over genetic variation. Each one has it's principles which support the respective interpretation of said data.
At dbfL1jkpmJg you will notice how a certain geneticist from Belgium stumps Kent H*vind, a Young Earth Creationist.
I was disappointed by the manner in which Kent answered this geneticist.
At this point, I am not seeking to debate a case for or against a young earth position. I am merely attempting to find a qualified YEC response to a video that is probably convincing a lot of Young-Earthers to abandon ship.
I believe that the best people to consult when attempting to find out how a Young-Earther would look upon and interpret the evidence that this Salmon-Stock Old-Earther/evolutionist and geneticist speaks about are YEC's who are working in the same field, the same capacity, and are as familiar with the same experiments as this geneticist happens to be working and conducting experiments in.
It hardly seems fair to anyone who is serious about finding irrefutable proof for either a young earth or old earth to take seriously any discussion between two people such as Kent H*vind (clearly a YEC High school teacher/textbook researcher or clearly not a Salmon-Stock geneticist and clearly unaware of the scientific research in the field of Salmon-Stock genetics) and an Old-Earther/evolutionist, like the geneticist who has called in to speak with Kent H*vind through the call-in talk show in which Kent H*vind is the guest to whom all calls are addressed.
I have emailed ICR (through http://www.icr.org) for a response to this video. But, the reply I recieved left me with the impression that no one had time to view the video or respond to it. Needless to say, I have had a very difficult time trying to find a qualified YEC from ICR or anywhere who could respond to a video that I am sure is convincing a lot of people that irrefutable proof for an old-earth is out there, although not very many YEC's may be aware of it yet.
I am attempting to find at least one YEC here who is as qualified as the geneticist happens to be and who is capable of providing serious students of science with irrefutable proof that the geneticist is hiding something or that he is not being straightforward or that the way(s) in which he and others like him are interpreting the evidence that he is speaking about contain at least one serious flaw.
Perhaps, at least one or more of the YEC's that are here can provide me with a better response than the one that Kent H*vind provided, in answer to the call-in geneticist that is featured in this video. I am hoping, one way or another to get a serious and informed YEC response to this video.
Again, please keep the folowing in mind when replying to this post and topic:
At this point, I am not seeking to debate with either YEC's or Old-Earthers. I am merely attempting to find a better response to the call-in geneticist than the response everyone is receiving from Kent H*vind in this video. Thank you!
One more thing! Can anyone here tell me why everytime I type H*vind correctly the "*" always replaces the letter "o", which is the letter I am actually typing in that space everytime I type that name? Also, can anyone here tell me why the "*" doesn't replace "o" anywhere in the body of this post other than immediately after the capitalized letter "H" in Kent's surname?
H*vind answers with the principle of design. He is completely justified in saying this, as humans have copied the design of creation since the beginning. In ancient times, we imagine people using logs to roll heavy objects and the invention of the wheel. The invention of the clock, and the calender is based on the movements of the sun, moon and stars. In medicine, we design drugs by knowledge of the biochemical workings of the body. In technology, we have developed sonar and radar, aircraft and helicopters, and nanotechnology. In physics we have studied the laws which govern all things--are these not design and order? One of the predictions of design is that all things should be able to be expressed in logical, coherent, and mathematical statements. Relative patterns, relative principles, and relative stability should govern all things, anc can be predicted. If we think this is not applicable to the basis of ALL the disciplines, then maybe we should examine our intellectual honesty.
And to usurp some kind of claim because he has done a study on salmon, which are one of the most striking examples of instinct, is wearing very thick evolutionary glasses. The instinct to return to a home ground to spawn is assumed to be (rightly so) in the genes. But to explain the origin of instinct in evolutionary terms smacks of Lamarcism. Acquired traits are not inherited. But no bother to an arrogant geneticist who obviously vaunts his own studies above the work of God in fish.