In the very first place, it must be understood that when a YECcer uses the term evolution, he nearly always means the controversial part- macroevolution, and in particular the idea that the natural history of our planet can be understood in purely evolutionary terms.  As shorthand, sometimes this get's shortened to 'evolution' instead of 'macroevolution.'  As this thread is written for adults, it is my hope that this distinction is understood.  Violators will be deleted.

But that leads to a couple of important points which help lead to an understanding of the basis of my YEC position (others may approach it differently).

On the one hand, it has to do with 'science.'  As is clear by excuse after excuse in the other threads, there really is not empirical, repeatable, observable, experimental, substantiation for macroevlution.  That has not stopped people from calling it 'science.'  For the purposes of this thread, or at least from my own point of view, I don't particularly care about that.  Call it what you want.  When I say 'science' I will specifically refer to 'experimentally verifiable.'  We don't need to be told that scientists have abandoned that notion en masse.

Even if its reasonable, that's not the point.  The point is that there is an epistemological difference, here, and I think I can speak for all YECcers when I say that we whole heartedly embrace the scientific method insofar as it is observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc.  (testable does not necessarily mean in a lab- testable means double blinds, controls, elimination or reduction of variables, etc).  As such, every YECcer that I've ever met makes use of the SAME experimental data to make their point.

Its not that the experimental data is ignored, its that it is interpreted in a different way.

And that leads me to the first reason I'd like to submit for why I am a YECcer, and that is because when I look at the existing biological record, I see a uniform, observable, constant, law of biology:  biogenesis.  That is, life from life.   I see variation within populations of creatures, but I see limits to that variation.  Furthermore, it is experimentally verifiable that these limits exist.

I do not permit myself to set aside experimentally verifiable facts.  I need a model that will incorporate both the variation that I see as well as the limits to that variation.  YEC accounts for both, especially in the sense that it would indicate an initial starting place for each population.  Or, to put it another way, to the question of "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  the law of biogenesis firmly suggests that the chicken came first.

Now, this doesn't argue for the YOUNG in YEC, but it does speak to the C.  It does not prove even the C, but it does strongly suggest it.  To me, it is an important first step.

"Are you going to delete your own post because of its use of sarcasm? "As this thread is written for adults..."

Was that sarcasm?  

"Please define "macroevolution". Can you give a clear example of what you think an event of "macroevolution" would be?"

I'm not certain that 'macroevolution' needs to be further specified for the purposes of this thread, as it is, in the main, the POV being contrasted against the YEC.  [edited]  I suppose it might be enough to say that macroevolution could be understood as a violation of the law of biogenesis, over time, and an overcoming of the limits of variation observed to be inherent in most genomic systems.

I don't see how macroevolution can be a violation of the law of biogenesis, unless all you are disputing is the origin of life to begin with.

I suppose it might be enough to say that macroevolution could be understood as a violation of the law of biogenesis, over time, and an overcoming of the limits of variation observed to be inherent in most genomic systems.

We ought to stipulate from the outset that science vigorously disagrees with that statment.

Perhaps a better definition for "macroevolution" is simply "that evolution which occurs at the level of species or above but which employs no different mechanisms from those mechanisms postulated to be the case at the 'microevolutionary' level"

Sntjohnny, I'm sorry to have asked for a simple definition of 'macroevolution'.  I was taking this statement at face value:

In the very first place, it must be understood that when a YECcer uses the term evolution, he nearly always means the controversial part- macroevolution, and in particular the idea that the natural history of our planet can be understood in purely evolutionary terms. As shorthand, sometimes this get's shortened to 'evolution' instead of 'macroevolution.'

If I am to have this understanding "in the first place", then the concept of macroevolution, as held by YECcers, seems rather important to the discussion.  What is it that you mean by "macroevolution"?  How does one distinguish it from "microevolution"?  Can you give a simple example to illustrate the distinction?  I'm not trying to trick you here.  Am I being unreasonable?

It's ok that you want to claim that there is no such thing as macroevolution or that we need a new concept.   But it is hard to assess your claim if we don't know what you are asking us to reject.

Interesting that you require such stipulations before starting this thread, SJ. Sometimes a viewpoint is ridiculed simply because it is ridiculous. I will be sitting this thread out, as I am incapable of allowing my intelligence to be insulted without resorting to ridicule. I will be watching, though   .

And I suspect this thread would be better named "in attack of evolution", since you have nothing, nothing, to defend.

We'll make that Stathei's one freebie.

Gentlemen, gentlemen.   Honestly, truly, I was only trying to clear up any equivocations right from the beginning.  It was not my purpose to debate whether macroevolution is anything above speciation (as the Mayr quote I have provided asserts or AT and above, as Cogito's wiki quote of Gould's suggests.  I was really just heading off equivocation concerns.

I'll make a deal with you that if it does look like a more proper and thorough definition for the purposes of this thread needs to be outlined, I will gladly provide it.  However, as it should be evident that I feel constrained by my self-imposed label of an experimentalist and my view that much of 'evolutionary theory' is non-experimentally verified, it follows that I won't have much use for the whole 'macroevolutionary' concept.  I, at least, won't be referencing it much.

If any other YECcers plan on using the term more, then perhaps they may wish to go ahead and refine it more.

I can't stop myself from asking a question.

How do YECers propose new species appeared? Egg, or Chicken?

...I have always argued, though, that the fact that a population does not breed with another similar population does not mean that they cannot breed.  In your ring species example, perhaps the difference in song preferences is only racism at the orinthinological level.    If they were more open minded, would they mate?  COULD they mate?  Sorry, this is not really what I want to talk about in this thread.

I know, but it is necessary to understand precisely what it is we are talking about.  You accept some forms of "evolution" but reject others.  So I need to know what you mean.  Perhaps we can define a species as just an "active gene pool"--one that involves genes that interact with each other.  So donkeys and horses might be considered marginally the same and marginally different species, since they can produce offspring, but the offspring are not usually fertile.  That is, the offspring are viable, but they cannot produce viable eggs or sperm.  So there are different species that interbreed, but only in a marginal way.  Evolution explains this by positing that horses and donkeys descend from a common ancestor that was not quite that distant in the past.  I'm not quite sure how you would explain such hybrid species in your non-evolutionary terms, but I suppose that we'll find that out.

However, sufficiently related and so justifiably worthy of mention is the fact that any given creature has within its genes a significant amount of variation possible for later morphological manifestations, but there is an observed limit to that variability, as well.  You can take the most genetically robust mouse colony and breed all sorts of nice colors from it (think what we do with dogs) from now until forever and you're still never get anything more than a mouse.  You'll not get a mouse with wings, for example.  Its simply not present in the genes of a mouse.  The acquisition of significant morphological traits would represent new, different, or corrupted genetic code not present in the original population.

Given that the theory of evolution is based on the concept of small, incremental changes over geologic timespans, I don't think that the improbability of winged mice is an issue.  Do you?  If that kind of thing happened, it would probably be seen as incompatible with evolution theory.  Do you not agree?  That is the kind of change that YECcers would really like to see, since it couldn't be easily justified by any Darwinian principles as we know them.

In such cases where we can expose creatures to radiation to speed up mutations, creatures with these crazy new morphological features, these mutants, really, rarely live to reproduction.  They would not in the wild, for sure.

Indeed.  And this observation is quite compatible with Darwinian (macro)evolution, is it not?  So it's hard to see what your point is in bringing this up.

This is a reality that forms an important part of my belief that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that natural selection can produce on a gene pool.

That does not distinguish your position from the standard theory--that evolution is a slow, incremental process.

Did ya'll know that humans the world over share 99.9% of the same DNA?

So?  Why is that an interesting observation?

Alright, moving along.

Variation with observed limits is a scientifically verifiable fact.  Ya'll may feel it is justifiable to extrapolate from that for reasons you feel are valid, but that is neither here nor there (my only objection is when you insist on calling it 'science' when you make these extrapolations).  This leads to a consideration of issues that I think form some important differences in the way a YECcer views the world- or at least, the way this particular YECcer views the world.  Cogito has been itching for this, and its as good a time as any.

Namely, as I indicated in the very first statement I offered about YEC to Stathei (in the "genesis is made-up" thread... 5 points), I do not think that science is the only mechanism by which knowledge about the world comes.  As I have constantly indicated, in order to make the distinction even more clear, I term myself an 'experimentalist.'  Whatever else is the case, I think everyone has to agree that not everything deemed a 'scientific' fact has the same epistemological value.  Things that are experimentally verified are highly esteemed by me.

However, not all truth claims can be experimentally verified.  Stathei accidentally invoked another way to evaluate truth claims when he talked about discussing the integrity of a witness.  Cogito clearly believes that deductive logic can evaluate truth claims, or he would not be arguing with me in the cumulation thread.  Some things can only be known because a witness tells us about them.  They cannot be experimentally verified.  Some things can only be known via logic.  They too cannot be experimentally verified.

There may be instances, of course, where you can bring to bear experimentalism, however.  This inter-methodological corroboration is great when you can get it.  But you can't always get it.

The difference and distinction is that if I think I have learned something deductively, that proposition has as much epistemological force as something that I have learned experimentally.   Same thing with witness evaluation.  Same thing with historical inquiry.  This is a clear difference between me and the skeptics on this board.

If we established a spectrum where on the left side was Complete Ignorance (0%) and on the right side was Complete Certainty (100%), if I uncovered something that was completely certain historically (100%) I would consider that 'complete certainty' the same quality as a completely certain experimentally verified proposition.  The 100% in each category are like terms.

For the skeptic, certain forms of inquiry will never be on par with 'scientific' certainty.  Thus, something that is historically certain (100%) is actually only at 30%, 50%, or 70% when compared to the 'science' scale.

Thus, for example, even if I proved to any of you that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical fact- complete 100% certainty- the odds are extremely unlikely that this certainty will not be able to overthrow the level of certainty you think that you have obtained via science.

And this calls to attention yet another distinction that can be exploited from my self-distinction of being an 'experimentalist.'  There are many aspects of evolutionary theory that simply are NOT conducive to experimental inquiry.  The whole notion of the fossil record is clearly a matter of historical inquiry, virtually by definition.  I am deeply skeptical of any system that papers over important differences in the types of knowledge claims that are out there with the label 'science.'

For, the fact is that I believe, not that science is ineffective, but that it is very effective WITHIN its domain.  I think other methods are also effective- WITHIN THEIR DOMAIN.  When you are lucky enough to find a proposition that overlaps domains, you will have a good opportunity to deepen the epistemological value of that proposition.  This is not always possible.   So, you have to be disciplined.  You use the historical method for matters of history.  You use experimental methods for brute facts under constant and repeatable observation and manipulation.  You use cross-examination techniques to establish the credibility of a witness.  You use principles of logic to explore a logical proposition.

Which again, is not to say that you don't sometimes have propositions that overlap domains.

Which leads to the next point.  From an epistemological POV, you can have claims that are epistemologically weak and others that are epistemologically robust.  A claim that is falsifiable is epistemologically robust.  One that isn't falsifiable, either in principle or in practice, is epistemologically weak.   This is true for ANY knowledge claim.

A historical proposition that is in principle or in practice unfalsifiable is epistemologically weak.  One that could be falsified is robust.   You can have a well-substantiated proposition that could be either things.  Yes, you can even have well-substantiated propositions that are nonetheless unfalsifiable, and this is true in all of the methodologies.

I could go on musing about how knowledge claims, regardless of the methods employed, operate on the same sort of epistemological weak/robust principles, but I'll only offer one more.

An epistemological robust claim is one where the evidence substantiating the proposition is easily and simply inferred.  An epistemologically weak one is where the evidence substantiating the proposition is esoteric.  Ie, the inference is only likely to be similarly made by someone already thinking along the same lines or sharing the same POV.

If your proposition requires that you don't take the evidence at face, but put some sort of spin on it, it is less robust than the proposition which says "Take me at face, I dare you."

Succinctly, I believe that knowledge about the world can be reliably obtained from a variety of different methods, and one ought to use the right method for the right area of inquiry- and one ought NOT use a method that is not made for a certain area of inquiry.  This leads to a number of important components to YECism.  I believe that many people who have a similar view will tend to be more open to YECism, while people who wish to rely only on one method, and even say that they are using that particular method when in fact they are using another, tend to be repulsed by YECism on sight.