User talk:Jzyehoshua/archive1

''This archive preserves the section in its original state prior to a major reorganization/summary of its most recent content as seen here and here. The reorganization just sought to remove redundant quoting of previous material while recategorizing for readability, and should have the same content anyway to the best of my knowledge, but this archive preserves the section in its previous state anyway. The page prior to the reorganization can be seen here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)''

A Simple Question
I'd like to pose a simple question to you. It's one that I've posed to quite a lot of Creationists in the past twenty years; thus far, I've only ever gotten four answers...and only one which was really honest. I'm curious as to whether you will offer that answer, or be the first to offer me an answer I haven't seen before.

The question is this: What would convince you that the theory of evolution is correct? What could I or anyone else show you that would make you accept the theory of evolution?

Respectfully, --Phentari (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'd expect to see the following if macroevolution were true, which frankly I see no evidence for. If I saw these, it would force me to reconsider my beliefs in favor of macroevolution, but thus far, the evidence points in the opposite direction in favor of creationism:


 * A fossil record with transitional forms and steady gradual evolution from simple life forms to complex ones as Darwin originally theorized, rather than stasis and sudden appearance of brand new species.
 * Clearly different parent species, brand new types of animals, in other words different genera, far back in the fossil record. Taxonomically everything should be categorized differently in other words, there should be bizarre merges of animals back in the fossil record, not ancient sharks, ancient pangolins, ancient amphibians, etc.
 * Obvious genetic evidence showing humans evolved rather than the cherrypicked evidence I see today. I ran a BLAST search on a claimed evidence for this evolution, the FOXP2 protein, and found they'd cherrypicked the evidence, there were other genera more similar than humans to the chimp protein like rabbits and cattle.
 * Easy interspeciary breeding between different taxonomic families. Darwin identified this as one of the 4 major weaknesses in his theory of evolution back in his work, "On the Origin of Species", specifically in chapters 6-9, and I've never seen it addressed. You should be able to breed between clearly different parent species or families if macro is correct, there shouldn't be sterility acting as an invisible barrier keeping everything in God-designed categories.
 * Clear examples of macroevolution occurring today. As the Brothers Winn have pointed out, bacteria are evolving many thousands of times faster than we are and we should be able to witness them becoming clearly different lifeforms if macro is true, yet in several centuries of examining them this has never occurred. Any type of one type of animal becoming a clearly different type, going between genera or families, would be convincing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you.  Now, taking these one at a time:
 * 1. What would these "transitional forms" look like? What features would they have to have to convince you that they were transitional?  Why is Australopithecus sediba, for example, not a transitional form?
 * 2. "Bizarre merges of animals." What would that look like?  Are we talking about animals with characteristics of, say, reptiles and mammals?  If not, what features would such "merges" have to possess to convince you?
 * 3. Again, what sort of evidence would be convincing to you? Would the fact that proteins converge as we go back along the evolutionary tree in a manner that perfectly coincides with evolutionary predictions convince you if the odds against such convergence being a coincidence were one in a hundred?  One in a thousand?  How about ≈1×10−132?  If, on the other hand, you would dismiss that by saying "God could have just designed it that way," then what sort of evidence would NOT provoke such a response?
 * 4. This is a bit puzzling, because such easy crossbreeding between very different species would, in fact, undermine our current understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics. In short, you're saying that a piece of evidence which would CONTRADICT evolutionary theory would CONVINCE you of evolutionary theory.
 * 5. So if I could show you, for instance, a unicellular plant species becoming a multicellular, colony plant species, would that be convincing? Would it be convincing if the shift was so significant that it keyed out as a jump in family?  How about a fertile species that's half one "kind" and half another...say, half-cabbage, half-radish?  Would that be convincing?  If not, what would it take?


 * --Phentari (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. I actually have a section on Sediba on my page about hominid controversies listing it as a weakness to the theory of macroevolution. It's my belief Sediba is actually too complex, and I quote a Nature article supporting this. That's another thing, such early complexity as seen from Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ramidus is an evidence against macro in my opinion. You have fossil octopi that are unusually complex and similar to today's octopi. The earliest hominids now are all unusually complex and bipedal, similar to modern man. I expect to see early species that were simplistic. At any rate, my original point was just that the fossil record as a whole should not show only microevolution/stasis and then sudden appearance of new species, but instead a steady transition between taxonomic families. As a whole it overwhelmingly does not, to the extent that the theory of Punctuated Equilibria had to be invented to posit evolution just mysteriously sped up when needing to create all the necessary transitions.
 * 2. I'm generally expecting to see whole new taxonomic groupings far back in the fossil record, merges between reptiles and mammals or just generally chaotic assemblages. There shouldn't be ancient octopi, ancient sharks, etc. They shouldn't be so clearly similar to modern-day descendants in other words, of the same basic categories you'd expect if God created core species that just evolved in lineages without substantially differing from the core designs. There should be creatures that are just a bizarre mess of features and not clearly identifiable to their modern-day kin.
 * 3. Well, how about a gene that clearly shows humans and apes are related? Again, someone erroneously claimed the FOXP2 as evidence, and I went to the trouble of running a BLAST search to see for myself, and found the evidence inconclusive at best.
 * 4. According to Darwin's original presentation of evolution in "On the Origin of Species" the lack of interspeciary breeding was one of the four main weaknesses in his theory, we should be able to breed between all forms of life and create mixed assemblages. That sterility occurs and if the species are too different breeding does not occur at all, suggests they were created with core designs which they are designed to stay within.
 * 5. Plants are a different issue, because there were only two kinds of clear types or parent families of them made in Genesis 1:12, herbs yielding seed, and trees yielding fruit with seed in itself. If a plant were to go from a form of herb to a fruit tree then that I suppose would be macroevolution, but I generally focus less on evolutionary horticulture because the distinction is more difficult to identify. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * BEFORE ANYONE POSTS ANY EVIDENCE:
 * Can you define what you would count as "steady" and "gradual" evolution? Do you want a direct record of parent to child over hundreds of thousands of generations (because that would be impossible)?  Can we get a more exact definition so we can be honest later about whether or not it has been met?
 * What do you mean by "clearly different parent species"? Two parents of the same species giving birth to a member of a different species?  Please be as precise as possible about what would qualify.
 * What would you count as evidence of human evolution? Let's set a definite bar so we can accurately measure if it has been hit later.
 * While I can't say much about Darwin's beliefs on the subject, the theory of evolution has evolved since he formulated his original hypothesis. But, in case someone here knows more than me, we'll need a strict definition for what would be considered as "easy" breeding that would prove your conception of evolution.  Then, I'd also appreciate exactly how "difficult" breeding would have to be in order to be evidence for Creationism.
 * What definition do you have of "macroevolution". What is the distinction between two different "lifeforms".  I want hard answers on this that way, in case evidence is provided, it can't be said later that we didn't meet your goal.  If you can be really specific.
 * I say all this for the benefits of you and everyone else. If you have accidentally been too vague in your formulations, then one side can later say, "They didn't meet the criteria I never fully outlined at the start!" and the other can reply, "They changed their criteria secretly once they were proven wrong!"  --ShadowofLords (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I go by the general description used by PBS of the fossil record per Punctuated Equilibrium. The fossil record from everything I understand clearly shows very slow, gradual MICROevolution, not macro, where for example a dog will slowly evolve into slight variations of other dogs over long periods without becoming noticeably different. Then suddenly the fossil record shows a whole new genera appear, so the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium as proposed by Gould and Eldredge claims that evolution just conveniently speeds up really rapidly whenever the key transitions need to occur, and that's why everything seems to be orderly proceeding along with no controversial change, and then a brand new genera or family pops into the fossil record. I just generally want to see the entire fossil record show the consistent phyletic gradualism Darwin theorized, not the stasis/equilibrium and punctuated appearance of new species which for me is more indicative of creationism.
 * Well, I've looked at the alleged transitions here and many appear to be of similar parent species or types as those seen today. There are ancient octopi. Ancient cockroaches. Ancient bees. Ancient ants. Ancient sharks. Ancient sawfish. Ancient eels. Ancient seahorses. Ancient perch. Even species exactly the same as today's which were declared extinct like coelacanths and laotian rock rats. My point is, I'd expect to see a brand new type of creature that is a merge and somewhere in between, not clearly categorized like species we see today. In other words, I believe God made basic prototypes of animals that evolved to become the types we see today, an ancient eel that became many types of eels, an ancient seahorse that became the many types of seahorses, an ancient cockroach that turned into all the types we see today, each evolving to their environments but not becoming a substantially different type of creature. To trust macroevolution, I'd have to see evidence there were transitional types of creatures, merges not even necessarily showing a common ancestor, but just showing there were chaotic types of creatures instead of everything clearly categorized similar to today's life.
 * I'm looking for solid genetic evidence showing humans descended from apes. Again, I examined the FOXP2 specifically and that fell apart when scrutinized because there were other genera more similar to apes than humans.
 * My definition of macroevolution is basically evolution between clearly different parent species. Evolution of bears into different kinds of bears is what I'd call microevolution. Evolution of moths into different kinds of moths is microevolution, not macro. Evolution of dogs into different kinds of dogs is micro, not macro. I expect to see evolution into a brand new 'type' of life, in other words a moth evolving in such a way it is no longer clearly a moth, a bear evolving so it's clearly no longer a bear, etc.
 * Understood. This is as specific as I can be. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Okay, so a fossil species which is almost evenly divided between human and ape features doesn't meet your standards for "transitional fossil." I'm forced to ask: would ANY fossil meet your standards?  Is there any conceivable fossil that you would acknowledge as transitional?


 * 2. Here's the problem: evolution doesn't predict that. Bizarre, random assortments that bear no resemblance at all to modern species would, again, contradict the theory of evolution; evolutionary theory does not predict one "kind" of creature giving rise to "a completely different kind."  The descendant will always have similarities to the parent.  And, of course, there's the fact that we DON'T see many of these genera early in the fossil record.  Modern mammals?  Not one ever found below the top 6% of the fossil record.  Flowering plants?  Vanish at a certain level.  Get back to the Cambrian explosion, and we have no mammals, no reptiles, no insects, no birds--a far cry from the Biblical Garden of Eden.  Again, it seems to me that you're demanding a "square circle" here--insisting on something that would disprove the theory of evolution as proof of the theory of evolution.
 * 3. What would that gene look like? The odds against the ERV correspondences we see in humans and primates are staggeringly high.  Human chromosome #2 shows extreme homology with chimp chromosomes 2 and 3.  These don't convince you, so what would?
 * 4. Darwin was a long time ago. He knew nothing about genetics, and he was wrong about a lot of things.  Why is that an issue?  We're talking about the modern theory of evolution--and genetic compatibility between vastly divergent evolutionary lines would contradict that theory.  "Square circle" again.
 * 5. "An herb turning into a fruit tree" is on the same level as "a cat turning into a dog"--again, it would completely destroy the modern evolutionary synthesis. We could talk at length about the amazingly-nebulous and ever-changing Creationist definition of "kind" (which is apparently broad enough to make a cabbage and a radish the same "kind" of plant, and at the same time narrow enough that there are many "kinds" of owls!)  However, again, I want to point out that the only specific example you've offered here of something that would convince you would, in fact, contradict the theory of evolution.
 * 6. "I expect to see evolution into a brand new 'type' of life, in other words a moth evolving in such a way it is no longer clearly a moth, a bear evolving so it's clearly no longer a bear, etc" Again, this would contradict the theory of evolution.  Evolutionary theory says that it's impossible for a creature to turn into a "brand new type of life."  EVERY creature inherits similarities from its ancestors.  A human is still a primate is still a mammal is still a therapsid is still a chordate with bilateral symmetry.


 * Respectfully, are you beginning to see a pattern here? Every specific piece of evidence you've said you would accept as proof of evolution would actually disprove evolution...and this is one of the standard four answers of which I spoke.  In fact, it's #3, what I call "the Square Circle answer."


 * --Phentari (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. If you're referring to Sediba, I think it's way too complex, too early, like Australopithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugenensis, and Sahelanthropus tchadensis, to fit macroevolutionary theory. You should not have a bunch of bipeds with complexity similar to modern man running around at the start of the hominid fossil record, there's no room then to claim they evolved into modern man if they were so similar to modern man to begin with. To quote Nature:


 * "But Wood says the species' unique mix of primitive and modern anatomy, particularly its foot, underscores the difficulty in determining whether any fossil represents a direct human ancestor or an evolutionary dead-end with some human traits. 'I think we had this crazy notion that our morphology and our behaviour were so special that they couldn't have conceivably evolved more than once,' he says, adding that the papers 'will make identifying human ancestors a hell of a lot more difficult today than it was yesterday.'"


 * To quote another Nature article regarding Sahelanthropus:


 * "Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans."


 * And then you have Ardipithecus ramidus which was so clearly complex that it destroyed the claim we evolved from anything similar to modern chimpanzees.


 * "Move over Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye... The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings."


 * Regarding your question, "would ANY fossil meet your standards? Is there any conceivable fossil that you would acknowledge as transitional?" My point 1 is generally in regards to the whole of the fossil record rather than isolated examples, how holistically it just shows no transitions and steady phyletic gradualism as Darwin originally proposed, but instead slow microevolution for long periods and then new species popping out of nowhere into the fossil record. This phenomenon occurs consistently through the whole fossil record, and I'm saying it shouldn't if macroevolution as originally proposed were correct.


 * 2. Ultimately though, why wouldn't you have a mix between, say, a seahorse and a jellyfish if they had a common ancestor? (Not intended as a precise example, just pointing out there should be some form of mix in marine life farther back.) How did ancient jellyfish and seahorses get to be there so early in the fossil record? Why are their general designs or formats so similar to today's? Why not chaotic types of creatures?


 * 3. There are other organisms with 24 chromosome pairs also than just apes, why didn't we evolve from them instead? Correlation does not imply causation. There are hares, beavers, deer mice, potatoes, and tobacco which all have 48 chromosomes as well. There's actually more genetic similarity between humans and mice than humans and apes, 99%. I don't see why a chromosome count has to imply macroevolution.


 * 4. I read through Punctuated Equilibria and the paper starts out admitting it's making up a new theory just to defend evolution, rather than through inductivism or simply going by analysis of the facts. The authors admit on p. 86, "Although our theory may be wrong, we cannot confute it. To extract ourselves from this dilemma, we must bring in a more adequate theory: it will not arise from facts collected in the old way." It seems clear to me Punctuated Equilibrium, from reading the paper, was just an attempt to conform the evidence - evidence which was strongly pointing towards creationism - to fit the theory of evolution, and essentially make evolution unfalsifiable as Walter ReMine has pointed out.


 * "So is punctuated equilibrium testable? Gould says that a series of fossils showing gradual development of an adaptation would refute punctuated equilibrium. ReMine points out the 'no lose' situation that Gould and company have created here: if the fossils show systematic gaps, then the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution is 'proven', but if the fossils show gradualism, then the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution is proven. In other words, evolution itself is no longer falsifiable! Punctuated equilibrium and neoDarwinism are both now part of the evolutionists' grab-bag of conflicting theories as Gould and Eldredge now view punctuated equilibrium as an addition to evolutionary theory rather than an alternative."


 * 5. I'd prefer to examine an example of evolution between animals, not plants, since again, there are only two clear kinds when it comes to plants. It's going to be less clear that it's macro and not microevolution if discussing horticulture.


 * 6. "Evolutionary theory says that it's impossible for a creature to turn into a 'brand new type of life.'"


 * From reading "On the Origin of Species" Darwin made the claim that only steady varieties would result, but said the fossil record was just "incomplete" and would provide the proof to show his theory right. It has not done so after nearly a century and a half.


 * "As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climate and other conditions of life change insensibly in going from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few species are undergoing change at any one period; and all changes are slowly effected. I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which will at first probably exist in the intermediate zones, will be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; and the latter, from existing in greater numbers, will generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which exist in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties will, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated.


 * On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.


 * I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe." (pp. 462-464)


 * --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(Unindent)

1. You're still making the mistake of thinking of evolution as a linear process, from simple to complex; it's not. Nor are hominid fossils "too complex." (How is a human "more complex" than a chimp? He's not; they've simply evolved in different directions.)

2. You wouldn't have a mix between a sea horse and a jellyfish because evolution isn't about Transformers. Sea horses evolved in one direction; jellyfish in another. At no point subsequent to the last common ancestor did those two lines intersect. You wouldn't have "chaotic mixes of creatures" because that's not evolution. You're arguing against a nonexistent "theory," here, that bears little to no resemblance to the actual theory of evolution.

3. Oh, dear. Did you really have to trot out Kent Hovind's old wheeze? Shame on you! The number of chromosomes don't matter; the HOMOLOGY between those chromosomes is what matters. Hovind and the others who repeat this hand-wave know that; this is just outright dishonesty and evasion to avoid dealing with the actual issue.

4. With respect, it seems more as if you've read Creationist claims on the paper. Have you really read the whole paper? Honestly, and without bias? Have you read the related literature necessary to place the paper into context? I certainly dispute your rather fanciful interpretation of the line you quoted; there's a vast distance between "The existing theory is inadequate" and "We're going to make up a new theory because we need to protect evolution."

5. So nothing involving plants will ever convince you that the theory of evolution is correct. Please tell me: what would you accept as a "change of kind" among animals? What would it look like? How would you know that it was a "change of kind?" What, in fact, is the testable definition of a "created kind" or a "baramin?"

6. Quote mines of Darwin are not responsive to my point, which is that you're arguing against a strawman theory. First off, with due respect, your understanding of the fossil record is...how can I put this? Highly biased, at best. You claim that there are no gradual transitional sequences--I ask again what you would ACCEPT as such a sequence, given that you must reject highly robust transitional sequences like whale transitionals. Note here the predictive power of evolutionary theory: many of the whale transitional fossils were found BECAUSE evolutionary theory predicted a fossil with those features would have to occur in a specific area.

Honestly, I'm still waiting for a clear explanation of what evidence you would find convincing, and why you would find it convincing. I'm going to suggest that, in actuality, no evidence would convince you, because the standard Creationist apologetics you're bringing to bear here can be applied to any conceivable evidence.

We can get into debating specifics, if you like, but I want to press this point first. Can you honestly describe specific, clear evidence that would convince you that the theory of evolution is correct? I can describe many specific evidences that would convince me it was wrong, but I've never met a Creationist who could do the converse without resorting to ambiguity or "square circles."

Be honest, please. Would you really be convinced? Bear in mind that, so far, you've told me you'd want to see a fossil record that shows a clear transitional sequence...of chaotic and unpredictable lifeforms with no clear antecedents.

--Phentari (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Well, I see this implied from quotes like those in the Nature articles, they were assuming bipedalism and advanced complexity of hominid faces were evolutionary advancements taking millions of years to develop. As such, you see quotes in Nature articles no less like "Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age.", "If Australopithecus looks more ape-like than a much older fossil, how can it belong to the human family? 'Anything with a more primitive face has to have its membership reviewed,' says Wood. No groups will be expelled on the evidence so far.", and "Detailed descriptions of the skeleton, of a fairly complete 4.4-million-year-old female, show that humans did not evolve from ancient knuckle-walking chimpanzees, as has long been believed." The discoveries of early bipedality wreaked havoc on the conventional theory of evolution as I detailed here. Major publications have in just the past few years since 2009, been acknowledging the human evolutionary tree has become a bush with many branches rather than the linear ape>human transition shown in textbooks. It's the early complexity and bipedality, as well as the proven coexistence of major hominids like Ramidus and Erectus or Afarensis and Ramidus, making it strongly unlikely they evolved from one another, that is forcing scientists to reconsider their long-held theories. They are certainly trying to adapt the theory of evolution to fit the new evidence, but there should be no denying the evidence has destroyed their previous model and weakened the theory of evolution.


 * 2. "At no point subsequent to the last common ancestor did those two lines intersect." So why is it we can't see these common ancestors the further back we go in the fossil record? Again, ancient jellyfish, ancient octopi, ancient sharks the farther one goes back with no common ancestors between them. You expect a mix between them at some point where something that looks like both of them put together existed and at no point do we seem to see these mixes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. Didn't realize that was a Hovind point, I thought I was just relating my own thoughts on the matter. I don't follow Hovind closely, the last time I really checked into his points would have been 2004 or so. The problem with homology is that it's in the eye of the beholder and can result in just eyeballing the fossils in question to cherrypick examples of how they could be evolving from a common ancestor. And when they are too complex too early? Again, you get quotes like these from the scientific community, "The real lesson, says Wood, is that appearances are a bad guide to evolutionary relations. Hominid and ape species probably mixed and matched from a set of features, he says, with the same traits evolving independently on multiple lineages." and "Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans." I'm not convinced there's any objective analysis involved with homology regarding evolution as opposed to interpretation of features that seeks to support evolution. I think homology is subject to human interpretation and bias rather than consisting of an objective, statistics-based analysis.


 * At any rate, my point on chromosomes was just that humans having 23 pairs of chromosomes and some apes having 24 (and not even all apes have 24 by the way) does not mean we evolved from apes, you have to examine all genera and not just do a selective analysis of humans and apes. Otherwise you're just assuming from the start that we evolved from apes, and selectively looking for evidence to support that belief as opposed to analyzing the evidence objectively. Thus why I said correlation does not imply causation.


 * 4. I happened across ReMine's points on the paper but I haven't read much of what ReMine said. My points on the paper are my own and I did read it for myself. To be frank I haven't read the entire paper through yet, I read quite a bit of it but not all just yet. The paper's early discussion about the need to abandon objective analysis of facts and create theories to support one's beliefs was disturbing enough that I had trouble finishing the paper. I think I characterized Punctuated Equilibria correctly however, the whole start of the paper is about how we need to abandon objective analysis of the facts and bring in a new theory to support the evolution worldview because the evidence doesn't support Darwin's original phyletic gradualism.


 * 5. Not what I said, again, the one example for plant evolution I'd consider seriously examining would be herb-bearing seed species going to fruit trees in violation of Genesis 1:12 or vice versa. Otherwise I wouldn't be convinced it was true macroevolution in violation of Genesis 1's kinds. Concerning animal evolution, again, I'd expect to see a moth evolve to the extent it was no longer a moth, or a jellyfish evolve enough that it wasn't a jellyfish. If going by the fossil record, one could look at those early examples of jellyfish or octopi and see if there's evidence they substantially changed beyond jellyfish or octopi, for example. As a general rule I just consider life to be categorized in commonsense ways like this, there was a core jellyfish kind or parent species made that evolved into the varieties we see today, a core shark kind that evolved into the varieties of today, etc. To truly prove evolution true means showing the mixed combinations that should exist between them, or that one type of creature can evolve substantially enough to go from one core type to another. I do not think that evidence exists because I don't think anything but microevolution occurred.


 * 6. Ultimately for evolution to have been falsifiable as a theory, there must have been tests for its falsifiability. Darwin identified four serious weaknesses in his theory for possible falsifiability.


 * "In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record." (p. 6)


 * Two make up what we call today's Intelligent Design movement, specifically the complexity of design in animals/organs, and the high degree of instinct in nature. I.D. is not really a competing theory of its own, rather just weaknesses Darwin himself acknowledged in his theory - the logical alternative theory to evolution would be creationism or core created parent species. The other two tests for falsifiability in Darwin's theory are transitional forms - which contrary to his expressed hope, we have not found, and appear to be a serious weakness to the theory, and sterility in interspeciary breeding. All four of those need to be examined for evolution to meet the tests of falsifiability that allow it to be categorized as science. If it is not testable, falsifiable, reproducible, etc., then it is not science and being treated like a religious belief which cannot ever be proven wrong. Any theories will just be adapted to try and prove it correct regardless of what evidence emerges.


 * Ultimately, I explained as clearly as I can what evidence would convince me, you just don't think that evidence should be supplied or fits evolutionary theory enough. However, the transitional forms and sterility in interspeciary breeding were again, the two most concrete tests for falsifiability of Darwin's original theory and arguably need to be very much addressed for it to be qualified as science. I think there should be clear transitions between one category of creatures to another, and that they should be coming from common ancestry, brand new mixed assemblages rather than the core categories or types of creatures we see today. Too much of what I see claimed as evidence for evolution is not evidence for macroevolution but microevolution, not for a common ancestor but compatible with the concept of kinds in creationism.


 * To truly prove creationism wrong and macroevolution right would require showing that 1) there were chaotic assemblages, common ancestors, far back in the fossil record, and 2) that transitions between clearly different kinds or core categories of life can occur today or have in the past. To really prove that everything came from a common ancestor rather than through Creator-originated core designs, you have to show that they transitioned between the most readily apparent core categories/kinds/designs, and that common ancestors to those categories/kinds/designs existed, essentially. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, macroevolution needs to be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and reproducible to be classified as science.


 * TESTABLE AND REPRODUCIBLE?


 * However, it's commonly claimed that it occurs at such vast time scales that it isn't testable. So what about bacteria? They evolve so rapidly we should be able to see macro occur if it can occur, right? But this doesn't happen, they remain bacteria. Furthermore, increasing evidence shows evolution occurs far more quickly than conventional theory has predicted, meaning it's more likely we should be able to see macroevolution occur today if macroevolution is possible.


 * VERIFIABLE AND FALSIFIABLE?


 * The fossil record consistently fails to verify macroevolution also, to the extent that the theory of phyletic gradualism has been largely abandoned by the scientific community in favor of a new theory designed to fit the evidence, Punctuated Equilibrium. It would appear the original theory was not verifiable or falsifiable, when it failed to meet the original test of falsifiability in the fossil record, it just got reshaped as a new theory that claims evolution sped up to explain why the transitions aren't apparent, and brand new species appear in the fossil record consistently rather than a gradual convergence to them.


 * Essentially I'm being expected to believe something that from what I can see does not meet in any way the qualifications of valid science. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jzyehoshua, I'm afraid that your incorrect perception of what evolution is had led you to incorrect assumptions about what evidence would falsify it. You seem to be taking the opinion that the theory of evolution was defined wholly and unnerantly by Darwin, and anything that does not confirm to what he expected therefore proves that evolution is wrong.  This is fundamentally the wrong way to view science, theories, and evidence.


 * Let us take gravitational theory. Isaac Newton, certainly a brilliant man in some respects, made several predictions with the inverse square law he originally formulated.  He said, based on the predictions of his theory, that there must have been another large solar orbiting body that was not known at the time that was affecting the movement of another planet.  The disovery of another planet that fit his predictions would eventually validate his theory based on the predictions he made (I can't recall which at the moment, but I'm sure wikipedia or a history textbook would have more details).  However, there were also things he didn't know and wasn't able to account for.  He also predicted that there might have to be another planet somewhere that would account for more strange movements in the planets.  Such a planet was never found.


 * Does the fact that he predicted a second planet that was never found invalidate the theory of gravity and the inverse square law? Certainly not.  The problem was not a problem with the fundamental theory of gravity, but rather than there were other things affecting the orbits of the planets that he did not take into account, because he could not have known.  The theory of relativity, which would eventually fit the evidence even better, was merely one more theory of physics that had more to say about gravity.  So, it turned out his theory wasn't wrong, but the evidence was observed and resulted in a new theory that, alongside gravitational theory, better explained the natural evidence.  This surely wasn't a dogmatic move to preserve a fundamentally flawed gravitational theory.  Rather it was an acknowledgement that there were other things that affected the movement of the planets that weren't gravity.


 * Let us go even before gravitational theory. We knew that if you took a rock and let go of it, it dropped.  However, it was widely thought by much of the world for thousands of years that only the weight of the object that was dropped affected the speed at which it fell.  When gravitational theory came along and took into account wind resistance, this didn't disprove that things fell to the ground or that weight affected how fast they fell.  And the fact that wind resistance was now taken into account to determine the speed at which things fall was not a deceitful attempt to fit the evidence to a broken theory.  We never abandoned that things fell, we just found out why and what other factors affected how things fall.


 * The analogy I am drawing here is that you have essentially come forward and said the equivalent of, "Newton's theory of gravitation never said anything about relativity, therefore the law of gravity is fundamentally wrong and the planets are actually all held in place by God!" This would, I'm sure you recognize, be a fundamentally flawed way of arguing.  But your argument about Punctuated Equilibrium is fundamentally flawed for much the same reasons.  Yes, the particulars of the theory are modified to fit new evidence.  That isn't bad science.  That is near the definition of science.  Without something that actually falsifies an established theory, we don't abandon the entire theory without evidence falsifying the central claims.


 * Darwin did not have access to all evidence that would ever be found for evolution. He had some very rough data, and his predictions were fairly rough (but fundamentally correct in the central core of evolution).  However, Darwin predicted a gradual but steady evolution over time.  We looked at the additional evidence and found he was wrong about the variation of the rates.  It is as if you learned that your friend had travelled from the town over and said, "It took him 20 minutes to travel, and the distance was 20 miles, so he must have been driving 60 miles an hour."  You then eventually are given access to a recording device that took records of how fast he was travelling at various times, and it appears that he was actually travelling 25 mph, then 31 mph, then 21, 28, 30, 24, 21... and then suddenly a record of 82 miles per hour, followed by more slow travelling speeds.  Does this disprove that your friend travelled to your house?  Does this disprove the effectiveness of the speed tracking device, even if all other testing has agreed that it is functional?  Or, perhaps your friend merely was on the highway for a short part of the trip!


 * In fact, the average over a long period of time could certainly be 30. But just because you drove at an average of something even as slow as 5 miles per hour doesn't mean you can't have driven as much as 100 at another point.  Just like this hypothetical situation, Darwin might have certainly been correct about an average "speed" of evolution, but have not known the particulars in variation of the rate of evolution.  Just as the car still traveled from point A to point B, species still evolved from common ancestors.  This is not to say that Punctuated Equilibrium is even necessarily true.  Just that, regardless of if it is true, it doesn't qualify as having "falsified" evolution.  Disagreement on the particulars of *how* different species have evolved doesn't mean that we didn't evolve, just as disagreement on what route someone drove or how fast they drove doesn't mean that travelling didn't occur.  You seem to be saying that because one particular part of evolution was shown to be off, the entire theory must collapse.  But that different things of the same weight fall at different speeds doesn't falsify gravity, and that the "rate" of speciation might be different for different gene pools over the course of MILLIONS of years doesn't mean that evolution is false.


 * My focus before was primarily very general, but I want to point out one very important and rather key specific. It isn't necessarily that evolution rapidly "speeds up" conveniently wherever it is "needed".  Rather, you can imagine it like this.  In my understanding, large enough group of species is constantly undergoing many mutations over many generations, most of which are neutral, some of which are beneficial, and some of which are harmful.  However, if the species keeps breeding with other members of their species as a whole, the species will continue to evolve as a whole.  However, imagine that you take a species and some environmental disaster or large migration splits the species into two or more groups, which won't have any chances to interbreed.  If their local environment doesn't change, you will only see minimal changes between the two groups, things that might actually be because of cultural/tribal pressures rather than environmental pressures.  However, what if they are split into two groups in wildly different environments?  Let's say one group is forced into a hazardously cold environment.  If they develop thicker fur, or a new organ begins to form that allows better handling of the temperature, it didn't happen because it was "needed".  Rather, the mutations may have accidentally arisen before this through other mutations, but they weren't selected for and may have disappeared.  But now, these individuals with the mutation are much more likely to survive, or have an edge in surviving and passing on their genes, so more and more individuals are likely as time goes on to have these new features.  It is also possible that this subgroup entirely dies out.  But in this case, there was clearly a "need" for the evolution, but the species did not happen to have the correct random mutations that would have benefited them.


 * Also, I want to point something really, centrally important here. You want to know what might be able to falsify evolution?  Creation.  An entirely formed new species, with no ancestors, springing up from the dirt.  That would destroy the concept of common ancestor.  And, I'm assuming that's something similar to what you believe in.  This is what strikes me as you attempting to force this into being a "tails you win, heads I lose" situation.  If we did observe rapid evolution, could you not (indeed, would you not) declare that a creator had stepped in and changed the "rate" of mutation, thereby "proving" your hypothesis?  This is in fact what you seem to be claiming is the evidence for a creator, rapid appearance of a new species in the fossil record.  But, the fact that we don't observe rapid stable mutation and speciation is also your evidence that evolution is in fact impossible!  You cannot have it both ways.


 * Now, a few quick question before I proceed further on this example: you accept that dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor correct (meaning that dogs and wolves are of the same "type")? If so, over how long?  And do you accept the evolution of the horse as well (a series like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseevolution.png, with your view having all of those animals having been the same "type" all along)?  --ShadowofLords (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "You seem to be taking the opinion that the theory of evolution was defined wholly and unnerantly by Darwin, and anything that does not confirm to what he expected therefore proves that evolution is wrong."


 * On the contrary, I'm just pointing out that for evolution to meet the qualifications of valid science it must be falsifiable. Can you identify for me what the tests of falsifiability of evolution are? You disagreed with my concerns about transitional forms and sterility in interspeciary breeding, but they made up two of the four tests for falsifiability of Darwin's original theory. To me it looks like Darwin's original theory of phyletic gradualism got disproven by the fossil record, so they made a new theory to try and patch up the holes and make evidence which had clearly indicated creationism conform to a new theory of evolution called Punctuated Equilibrium.


 * The fact that stasis occurs for long periods and then sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to see if creationism is true, to make a new theory supporting evolution saying it just sped up too fast to be seen in the fossil record doesn't seem to be treating evolution as falsifiable. No matter what evidence emerges for creationism in conflict with evolutionary theory, a new theory will just be made to support evolution and offer some new explanation for the evidence. Creationism will never be considered in theory this way no matter how strongly the evidence points to it.


 * Concerning Newton, the differences are that 1) Newton's broad theory of gravity was correct and demonstrably so whereas Darwin's broad theory of macroevolution has yet to be proven and has failed to meet its own original tests for falsifiability, and 2) Darwin was not the original author of the theory of evolution, that would have been Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed evolution was guided by a Creator. The scientific community doesn't seem to like mentioning that Wallace actually proposed the theory of evolution before Darwin did by personally contacting his friend Darwin with his own paper, following which Darwin hurried his paper into print to beat Wallace to the punch. Or that Wallace's theory of evolution supported a Creator, which seems to be why Wallace never gets mentioned.


 * "Without something that actually falsifies an established theory, we don't abandon the entire theory without evidence falsifying the central claims."


 * The theory itself is responsible for being falsifiable. Again, the original theory as proposed did not measure up to the evidence of the fossil record and arguably does not to the other tests either. For evolution to be valid science it must be falsifiable, again. How would you say evolution can be falsified and the alternative theory of young earth creationism proven true?


 * "You seem to be saying that because one particular part of evolution was shown to be off, the entire theory must collapse."


 * Not necessarily collapse, but the evidence of the fossil record is again, more arguably in favor of the originally competing theory to Darwin's theory of macroevolution, core created kinds or creationism. I'd argue it should be strong evidence for the reconsidering of creationist theories in contrast with macroevolution, rather than claiming a new theory (Punctuated Equilibrium) created and creationist theories still called wrong. To me this indicates a bias that creationism must be wrong and evolution must be right, to the extent that when the evidence points in favor of creationism and against evolution, a new evolutionary theory must be designed to conform to the evidence without ever considering creationism could be right.


 * "You want to know what might be able to falsify evolution? Creation.  An entirely formed new species, with no ancestors, springing up from the dirt.  That would destroy the concept of common ancestor.  And, I'm assuming that's something similar to what you believe in. "


 * While it would certainly prove Creationism true if God were to intervene modern day and create species as He did back in Genesis 1, and science were to somehow observe it occurring to know that it had happened, that's hardly something to be predicted by Creationist theory since it's initiated by intelligent intent rather than a naturally reoccurring process. Evidence of creationism as such will primarily be seen from the fossil record, whereas the theory of evolution, because it claims naturally reoccurring processes created life, should also be witnessed today as well.


 * In reference to your last question, I do think it likely dogs and wolves are of the same core type or kind, as are various kinds of horses. I would consider such to be microevolution, not macro. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before I go any further, I'd like you to commit to a definition of "macroevolution." Meaning no offense at all, but a large part of the aggravation of debating Creationists is the astounding vagueness of the jargon they employ.  We're told that it's proven scientific fact that evolution beyond the "kind" is impossible...but no testable definition of "kind" is ever forthcoming.  We're told that it's proven scientific fact that "no mutation can result in a gain in information"...and then, no matter what is shown, be it duplicate genes, genes with novel information, genes with novel information which produce major morphological changes, what have you...we're told "that's not a gain in information."  Yet, when we ask what WOULD constitute a gain in information, Creationists are silent (or, when pressed, say something like "Information that appears out of nowhere and has no previous source," which, again, would contradict the theory of evolution.)


 * To everyone except Creationists, "macroevolution" is evolution at or above the species level. It's observed, testable, documented fact.  We've seen numerous examples.  Creationists, though, tell us, "No, evolutionists are wrong about what macroevolution is.  THAT'S not macroevolution.  WE know what macroevolution is."  Yet, when asked for a clear, testable definition, they're exceedingly evasive.  At best, they offer a vague definition like "One kind of animal turning into a different kind."  At worst, they say "Just give us examples and we'll tell you whether they're macroevolution or not."


 * So: what is the definition of macroevolution, as far as you're concerned, please? So many of your arguments are predicated on this point that I feel we need to clearly define the term before we proceed.


 * --Phentari (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always thought the UC Berkeley definitions for macro and micro evolution were pretty good, they are what I cited when defining micro and macro evolution for Creationwiki in April 2012. To just repeat the edits I made there:


 * According to the University of California's Museum of Paleontology:
 * "Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scale — the insects, for example — you would see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. "


 * "Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction."

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."


 * For me, microevolution refers to adaptation that can be considered within a Biblical kind, I would say below the Genera or Family level taxonomically. Macroevolution is the kind of evolution supporting a common ancestor, the broader level of evolution assumed to occur if a common ancestor is true. Micro means small, macro means large, microevolution is just evolution at a small level where only small adaptations occur, macro refers to broad evolution, the kind that would occur between core types of animals and could disprove the concept of Biblical kinds and creationism if shown true.


 * For example, humans and apes splitting from a common ancestor would be identified as macroevolution (and I don't think that ever occurred) whereas a human evolving as a different kind of human or an ape as a different kind of ape would just be microevolution and fully compatible with the concept of Biblical kinds seen in Genesis 1; compatible with young earth creationism. Macroevolution for me simply refers to this kind of broad evolutionary change that would disprove the concept of creationism, and be so broad it falls outside the adaptation within core designs or kinds that is supportive of creationism. I do not believe evidence for that kind of evolution exists, either in the fossil record or as witnessed today. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is, again, where we encounter what seems to be perhaps the most central and fundamental area where you are absolutely backwards on Evolution. Your claim is that, if Darwin proposed a theory of Evolution and set forward what could falsify it, and then things that he claimed could falsify it turned out to indeed be true, then therefore evolution is wrong.  You, however, are not arguing against the theory of evolution.  You are arguing against Darwinism.  You seem, like many creationists, obsessed with Darwinism, not Evolution.  Darwin could have very well gotten many things wrong.  Proving that he got these things wrong would disprove *DARWIN'S* version of the theory, yes (or at least prove that it is not wholly correct).  Let me put this comparison forward.  Aristotle proposes a theory of gravity that says, "Heavier objects always accelerate towards the earth faster".  He says, if you can find two objects of different weights that accelerate at the same speed when dropped, his theory of gravity is falsified.  Hundreds of years later, some chap (perhaps Galileo or Newton) comes along and falsifies it by doing exactly that.


 * Now, again, years and years later, somebody else come along and say, "I know for a fact that objects don't fall towards the Earth! You see, Aristotlian gravity predicts that objects that are heavier accelerate faster!  But, this was falsified later, and therefore gravity is incorrect, and therefore things don't fall towards the Earth!"  This seems ridiculous, but it is precisely what you have done.  Just because Aristotle's gravity theory was falsified, doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.  And, even if Darwin's Theory of Evolution was falsified, this wouldn't mean that evolution didn't occur.  And the people who proposed this change that "falsified" "Darwininism" certainly don't agree with your central claim.  They believe that this just supports that Darwin was wrong about one issue on Evolution ("Mutation rates are constant and slow"), but that the modern theory of evolution, *NOT THE OLD THEORY OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION*, still stands with a minor change ("Mutation rates may remain constant, but the continual spread of mutation rates is highly dependent on the environment the mutations occur in").  It is, I will repeat, quite literally as if you came in here saying, "Newton falsified gravity!"


 * At this point, I still don't think I have heard an answer of how old you think the earth is. Care to enlighten?  Shadow of Lords talk  02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * True, disproving Darwinism alone does not disprove all macroevolution. However, that the theory has to be completely and fundamentally reformed as Punctuated Equilibrium once it's finally accepted the fossil record utterly disproves Darwin's original theory of Phyletic Gradualism, seems to me akin to "moving the goalposts" as it were.


 * I'm not convinced evolution truly meets the tests to be qualified as valid science any more than Intelligent Design does. I think they are both arbitrary and prone to human interpretation and bias, as pointed out by the Brothers Winn in this video. I.D. is arbitrary in claiming unusual complexity of design in biology and natural instinct. But macroevolution is also arbitrary in its support for evolution, like homology and fossil examination. To me it looks like they just cherrypick evidence from the fossils to claim evidence of a human-ape link or more generally for macroevolution, rather than examining the relation between all genera fairly. It comes across as just eyeballing the fossils to try and interpret how they changed, and the fact that so many new fossils are disproving the resulting theories (e.g. Savannah Hypothesis, and that we came from ancient chimp-like common ancestors) shows to me just how wrong those interpretations were.


 * You ask for solid explanation of how I think creationism can be falsified, which I sought to provide by the way, but I'm not convinced macroevolution has been providing such a definition itself. Again, it was falsified in its original format by the whole of the fossil record (which to my mind is overall more supportive of creationism) and just got repackaged to fit the new evidence as Punctuated Equilibrium. So I'm very skeptical of the claim that scientists are approaching macroevolution scientifically as a falsifiable theory rather than a worldview they base all other presumptions on, similar to a religion. Again, I think solid tests for falsification need to be established for macroevolution; and more generally how it is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and verifiable. Otherwise I just do not think it qualifies as science as opposed to a religious worldview.


 * Concerning how old I think the earth is, I'm not convinced it's a 10,000 year old earth, I think Genesis 1:1-2 appear to indicate it may have already existed before the 6 days of creation. However, I think the most recent creation of life on earth is around 10,000 years old, meaning carbon dating and other radiometric dating methods are severely flawed. I believe a flood mixed with tectonic/volcanic activity altered the radiometric decay rates of all fossilized/depositional material, making it appear far older than it should. As Brent Dalrymple (a Talk Origins writer by the way) in "The Age of the Earth" concedes, radiometric decay can be altered. Dalrymple argues that such alterations are minimal and rare in the chapter on radiometric dating, but clearly they can occur. And volcanism as seen in Mount St. Helens does appear to have substantially changed the radiometric K-AR dates; making recent material appear far older.


 * Logically, volcanism has carbonizing, radioactive effects, and if you mix it as part of a global flood so that everything affected is mixed with lava and ash, I think it would very definitely affect the isotopic decay and daughter isotope levels. I furthermore see evidence that volcanism did play a role in the extinction of ancient life. Furthermore, I think much volcanism may have actually occurred underwater meaning lower material could have actually been more greatly affected in decay. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, Joshua, with all due respect, your answer doesn't really answer anything. It's very vague, and not at all subject to testing. You describe microevolution as "small change," but those "small changes," by the standards you set, could involve a cabbage turning into a radish. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, and that's been observed many times. You mention evolution at the level of the genus; that, too, has been observed. As I pointed out, evolution at the FAMILY level has been observed. You describe microevolution as "small change," but those "small changes," in your eyes, could involve a cabbage turning into a radish. But you simply say, "Oh, that's not macroevolution, because it's still within the created kind." Of course, we have yet to see a testable defintion of "created kind," so you can claim that it's still within the kind, REGARDLESS of what's observed. How would you know when a species has evolved "beyond a kind" if you saw it happen?

Your ideas of what SHOULD happen if evolution is true are...well, odd. You insist that if evolution is true, we SHOULD see a common ancestor to the jellyfish and seahorse which has the specialized traits of both. Why in the world would that be so? Those specialized traits are what differentiates the species. The common ancestor would have the specialized traits of NEITHER--those developed after the two species split off! It's a little like saying that because an egg is a key ingredient in both a chocolate cake and a cheese omelet, it should contain both cheese and chocolate, and if it doesn't, it's obviously not an ingredient in either one! Alternatively, it would be like saying that because the O'Leary family has red hair, and the Jones family has strongly Polynesian features, and they share a mutual great-great-great-great grandmother, then Grandma must have been a red-headed Polynesian! --Phentari (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in hearing more about evolution at the genus level. Again, too much of what I see cited as evidence for evolution is specifically for microevolution, e.g. where a moth adapts in coloration yet remains a moth, or a finch adapts as a finch given an island environment, yet remains a finch, to give some well-known examples. Again, I'm not that interested in plant evolution because I'm not as certain what the core kinds would be. Genesis 1:12 only mentions two core kinds so it's possible there could be much more microevolution by plants than animals. Plant evolution does not mean we can infer the same about animal or human evolution, in other words. For me, small changes could result in a wolf turning into a dog, or even a dinosaur into a modern, much smaller reptile (per God's command that reptiles crawl in the dust, a possible explanation for how the dinosaur hip/leg structure fundamentally changed to that of today's reptiles). Any degree of evolution where the core kind/baramin does not clearly change is not contrary to creationism.


 * My point on what we should see if evolution is true is just that it makes no sense for an ancient shark genera, or ancient jellyfish genera, or ancient seahorse genera, to be around so far back in the fossil record. Why would you have creatures so similar to today's in the basic design if there was a common ancestor? They should all be coming from a common mix of features, you should see some category of creature that was a mix of all their traits, and certainly not the same categories or kinds of creatures that we see today. There should be brand new core types of creatures, not the same kinds like sharks, seahorses, and jellyfish, if everything just evolved chaotically from a common ancestor. That they are evident in the fossil record to me indicates core created designs were originally made and that evolution only occurred within these core designs, not between them from a common ancestor. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to butt in, but I just wanted to pop by and compliment the participants in this discussion for their calm, intelligent, and pleasant discourse. It's marvelous.--talk 14:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've enjoyed the discussion on evolution here, it's been a good discussion so far I think, and very free of fallacies like strawmen and ad hominems which too often ruin these sorts of conversations. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, dinosaurs did not turn into "modern, much smaller reptile[s]". For one thing, each dinosaur lived its own life as a dinosaur, eventually turning into a dinosaur corpse, and in a very few instances, a dinosaur fossil. For another thing, reptilian lineage does not come from dinosaurs, but amphibians. The living descendants of dinosaurs are what we now call birds. Take a look at a cassowary and become a believer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Naturally, when I say they became modern, much smaller reptiles, I'm referring, as with the other example of wolves turning into dogs, of their gradual microevolution over thousands of years. In neither case was I suggesting they changed overnight, I'm surprised that you thought I was saying that. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As Sprocket said, they DIDN'T become modern smaller reptiles they evolved into birds. Just because they were originally named "terrible lizards" doesn't mean to say that they actually were just big lizards and have shrunk a bit. Генгис silverbrain.png 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on the spurious distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" which has no place in scientifically informed discourse. Oops, I just did. The bit about individual animals turning into themselves was my unrepentantly snarky way to sneak in a link to taphonomy, which is where you will find explanations for lacunae in the fossil record. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Genghis Khant, I've always thought the dinosaurs to birds theory ridiculous, even if it makes for good reading in Jurassic Park. I believe the evidence is starting to point against, and will inevitably disprove the theory. As recently as 2010, recent studies cast doubt on the birds from dinosaurs theory.


 * Sprocket, UC Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" website as I already cited, defines micro and macro evolution. They are funded by the National Science Foundation and University of California as a pro-evolution, mainstream science organization, so when you say "the spurious distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' which has no place in scientifically informed discourse" I strongly disagree. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. You're citing a collection of teaching materials for elementary school classes? There is also some low-level undergrad material, but what I saw of it seemed geared towards avoiding language and class exercises that could be construed as supporting a creationist position. Too bad the authors of the site have chosen to co-opt the creationist macro/micro jargon. IMO, that only muddies the water. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, they are sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the University of California. There are Nature articles which define macroevolution also. The claim that macroevolution "has no place in scientifically informed discourse" is at odds with mainstream science. The terms are used by prominent scientists and scientific organizations. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

''I'd be interested in hearing more about evolution at the genus level. Again, too much of what I see cited as evidence for evolution is specifically for microevolution, e.g. where a moth adapts in coloration yet remains a moth, or a finch adapts as a finch given an island environment, yet remains a finch, to give some well-known examples.''

The problem with this argument is that it's infinitely plastic; no matter what is shown, Creationists will just take a step back to the next level. "It doesn't count, it's still X!" where "X" is whatever level of change has NOT yet been observed. Yes, I have, in fact, encountered Creationists saying "That's not macroevolution, it's still a plant!"

Again, I'm not that interested in plant evolution because I'm not as certain what the core kinds would be.

And you are certain what the core kinds of animals are? Perhaps you can tell me how many kinds of birds there are? How about we make it more specific--how many kinds of owls?

Plant evolution does not mean we can infer the same about animal or human evolution, in other words.

Why not? Simply disallowing half of the biological evidence based on your reading of the Bible is eyebrow-raising, to say the least.

Any degree of evolution where the core kind/baramin does not clearly change is not contrary to creationism.

...but how in the world can the "core kind/baramin clearly change" when creationists refuse to EVER commit to a clear and testable definition of "core kind/baramin?" The only definition they ever seem to be willing to commit to is "Creatures who are ancestors of one of the original God-created kinds." The problem with that definition, of course, is that it makes it absolutely impossible for ANY amount of change to ever be "beyond the kind." No matter how much a creature changes, it's still got the same ancestors. So when Creationists say "Show me an animal evolving beyond the kind," what they mean is "Show me an animal that evolves until it no longer shares the same ancestors as its parents." Again, we're right back to the "Square Circle."

''My point on what we should see if evolution is true is just that it makes no sense for an ancient shark genera, or ancient jellyfish genera, or ancient seahorse genera, to be around so far back in the fossil record. Why would you have creatures so similar to today's in the basic design if there was a common ancestor?''

Because evolution is not required to proceed at any particular pace. If a shark is ideally adapted to its environment, why should it change?

They should all be coming from a common mix of features, you should see some category of creature that was a mix of all their traits, and certainly not the same categories or kinds of creatures that we see today.

If you stop to think about that for a minute, you'll realize how contrary it is, not only to evolutionary theory, but to common sense. You're imagining evolution in reverse. Ancestors don't show a mix of all the features of their descendants--their descendants gradually add more and more new features that the ancestors didn't possess! We're right back to that poor great-grandmother. If she has one great-grandchild with strongly African features and curly hair, and another with strongly Chinese features and straight black hair, and another with strongly Irish features and red hair, would you imagine that the grandmother was a dark-skinned, freckled, Irish-African-Chinese woman with curly-straight red-black hair? Or would you conclude that those features probably came into the family after her time?

There should be brand new core types of creatures...

There are. Tell me: since the Cambrian Explosion is (I have been assured by Creationists) evidence of the Genesis creation account, where are the Cambrian mammals? The Cambrian birds? The Cambrian reptiles? The Cambrian flowering plants? The Cambrian insects? Where are ANY of those things? We can discuss in detail exactly HOW badly Creationists explanations fail when it comes to the fossil record, if you like, but let's start there.

Alright, I think I'm about done presenting things at this point. But, I want to point out one thing: Jzyehoshua, to me it appears that your credulity's ability to stretch is plainly and horribly skewed. You appear to be claiming that you can't believe that an object can evolve from one "kind" to another, but you believe that within a "kind", it is possible for MASSIVE speciation to occur, stably, in the course of only a handful of thousands of years. If dogs and wolves are of the same "type" and therefore share a common ancestor in your view, but dogs were domesticated sometime before 7000BC (I'm specifically avoiding evidence from carbon dating because you might just deny it to be accurate, this date is taken from archeological evidence), this means that dogs and wolves must have been separate species over 9000 years ago. This leaves less than 1000 years for an amount of genetic mutations that would result in the complete difference between dogs and wolves.

I propose that you don't believe in any plain, old, run-of-the-mill microevolution, but rather you believe in SUPERMICROEVOLUTION! Apparently, in your worldview, at one point, conveniently before we had any wish, want, or way of measuring these things, species were undergoing rapid but entirely stable genetic mutations to the point where over the course of a few hundred years the Canidae family split into dozens of dozens of species. This would have, naturally, required mutations rates to be insanely faster than what we see now, insanely more stable than what would actually happen if they were that much faster, and for insane populations of the family to suddenly be split into dozens of pockets that didn't interbreed at all. And, not only that, but these insanely fast, insanely stable, insanely isolated supermicroevolution events couldn't possibly break some invisible, undefinable, unquestionable wall that separates the "types". Your credulity, as I mentioned before, appears to be able to stretch to conform any evidence to fit your world view, rather than ensure your world-view evolves to take into account the new evidence. Shadow of Lords talk 21:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with this argument is that it's infinitely plastic; no matter what is shown, Creationists will just take a step back to the next level. "It doesn't count, it's still X!" where "X" is whatever level of change has NOT yet been observed. Yes, I have, in fact, encountered Creationists saying "That's not macroevolution, it's still a plant!"


 * On the contrary, I have every intent of sticking by my definitions, and defined microevolution as broadly as I believe Biblically possible to ensure it cannot be broadened further. Again, I wouldn't want to focus on plant evolution because I'm not sure more than two plant kinds or taxonomic categories exist given Genesis 1:12, and thus would expect to see quite a bit more evolution possible among plants than animals.


 * The Biblical framework I see mentioned in Genesis for how life was created, including the Hebrew words translated for these categories in the original manuscripts, I spelled out here. Specifically there were (after plant life was created) marine creeping things created first, then flying creatures (including flying creeping things), then huge dragons, then marine life, then earth life, then cattle, then reptiles, and then man. Actually, now that I think about it, the largest dinosaurs appear to have been in a category of their own separate from reptiles. Furthermore, God created specific kinds (Heb. miyn) within these broader Classes.


 * If Creationism and the Bible are right, there should be no macroevolution at all between those Classes which are very clearly stated to have been created separately. Furthermore, there should be specific kinds or Families within each that are further defined and likewise created separately.


 * And you are certain what the core kinds of animals are? Perhaps you can tell me how many kinds of birds there are?  How about we make it more specific--how many kinds of owls?


 * Again, the overall Classes are identified in Genesis 1, and I spelled out what they were over a year ago back in May 2012. I see two classes of plant life and 8 classes of other life mentioned which there should be absolutely no macroevolution between. I identified there 22 different bird kinds, including 3 owl kinds. (bath ya'anah - KJV owl, yanshuwph - KJV great owl, and kowc - KJV little owl) Those appear to be examples of kinds but are likely not exhaustive (as opposed to the Genesis 1 classes addressing global life) since they were for purposes of Israel dietary laws specifically and would not have mentioned life found outside of the Middle East.


 * Why not? Simply disallowing half of the biological evidence based on your reading of the Bible is eyebrow-raising, to say the least.


 * Because Genesis 1 identifies 8 forms of non-plant life, but only 2 forms of plant life. There are only two classes of plant life mentioned in Genesis 1, 'Eseb Zara' Zera' ("Seed-Sowing Plant") and Periy 'Ets ("Fruit Tree"). That's why I said earlier, "If a plant were to go from a form of herb to a fruit tree then that I suppose would be macroevolution". That's the one case with plant life where I could be sure it was macroevolution, if plants clearly went from seed-sowing plants to fruit trees. Because Genesis 1 only identifies two Classes of plants, it makes it much more difficult to be sure macro evolution is occurring as opposed to micro unless going between them.


 * ...but how in the world can the "core kind/baramin clearly change" when creationists refuse to EVER commit to a clear and testable definition of "core kind/baramin?" The only definition they ever seem to be willing to commit to is "Creatures who are ancestors of one of the original God-created kinds."  The problem with that definition, of course, is that it makes it absolutely impossible for ANY amount of change to ever be "beyond the kind."  No matter how much a creature changes, it's still got the same ancestors.  So when Creationists say "Show me an animal evolving beyond the kind," what they mean is "Show me an animal that evolves until it no longer shares the same ancestors as its parents."  Again, we're right back to the "Square Circle."


 * Again, I spelled out last year what the core Classes seen in Genesis 1 are, and even took this a step further by identifying where possible what the kinds within these Classes are Biblically.


 * continuing reply --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Because evolution is not required to proceed at any particular pace. If a shark is ideally adapted to its environment, why should it change?


 * But if all we ever see back in the fossil record are what Creationists would call the same core kinds or designs of creatures we see today, that raises the likelihood that only microevolution occurred within lineages. I would expect to see new Families taxonomically far back in the fossil record, not the exact same ones, if everything chaotically split off from a common ancestor. If the same kinds of life we see today all are evident far back in the fossil record, with the only major exception really being the dinosaurs (which Genesis 1 also refers to in v. 21), then it indicates to me that life did not go between core categories, and has been proceeding within specific core designs.


 * Furthermore, why would you have life so ideally adapted to an environment to begin with that after alleged hundreds of millions of years, it remains to all appearances little different than what it was? I mean, look at the fossil record. You have nautiloids and ammonoids supposedly 370-500 million years ago that appear for all intents and purposes identical to those we see today. Jellyfish from 89-164 million years ago that look exactly like those we see today. Sharks supposedly 370 million years ago which appear virtually identical to those we can see in aquariums. I thought the idea behind evolution was that life was supposed to gradually get more advanced over time through adaptation, not start out advanced and hundreds of millions of years later look exactly the same.


 * This is exactly what I would expect to see in the fossil record if God created core designs of life and a Flood with volcanic activity (fountains of the deep breaking up) led to the lowest marine life getting fossilized at the bottom of oceans. If macroevolution were true I would expect to see brand new forms and categories of life, or at best far more simplistic lifeforms than those we see today. Not creatures that look in almost all ways identical to the ones around alleged hundreds of millions of years afterward.


 * You're imagining evolution in reverse. Ancestors don't show a mix of all the features of their descendants--their descendants gradually add more and more new features that the ancestors didn't possess!  We're right back to that poor great-grandmother.  If she has one great-grandchild with strongly African features and curly hair, and another with strongly Chinese features and straight black hair, and another with strongly Irish features and red hair, would you imagine that the grandmother was a dark-skinned, freckled, Irish-African-Chinese woman with curly-straight red-black hair?  Or would you conclude that those features probably came into the family after her time?


 * Again, creatures fundamentally identical to the same versions seen today is something I would expect to see if creationism is true, not macroevolution. You claim they were so adapted to their environments early on that allegedly hundreds of millions of years later, they have not substantially changed. But how could they be so advanced and complex early on that all this time later they have not noticeably altered? To me that stretches the limits of credulity to believe the earlier creatures all this time later could still be essentially unchanged and to all appearances unevolved.


 * There are. Tell me: since the Cambrian Explosion is (I have been assured by Creationists) evidence of the Genesis creation account, where are the Cambrian mammals?  The Cambrian birds?  The Cambrian reptiles?  The Cambrian flowering plants?  The Cambrian insects?  Where are ANY of those things?  We can discuss in detail exactly HOW badly Creationists explanations fail when it comes to the fossil record, if you like, but let's start there.


 * I tend to think all of that life is far younger than believed and influenced by a flood with volcanoes opening deep underwater to fossilize the lowest underwater life first, small marine life more adjusted to hypoxia. I think the deepest ocean-dwelling marine life got fossilized first and affected most by the underwater volcanism, taking on greater appearance of age. You have fossils with the flesh outlines still intact and some even fossilized in the acts of eating, mating, and migrating, showing the fossilization occurred very rapidly. I don't believe it occurred over hundreds of millions of years but that the bulk of the fossil record was the result of a flood and underwater volcanism breaking up Pangaea, and built in roughly a year. I believe the carbonizing, radioactive effects of the volcanism simply enhanced the radiometric decay giving it a later appearance of age to radiometric dating methods.


 * I propose that you don't believe in any plain, old, run-of-the-mill microevolution, but rather you believe in SUPERMICROEVOLUTION! Apparently, in your worldview, at one point, conveniently before we had any wish, want, or way of measuring these things, species were undergoing rapid but entirely stable genetic mutations to the point where over the course of a few hundred years the Canidae family split into dozens of dozens of species.  This would have, naturally, required mutations rates to be insanely faster than what we see now, insanely more stable than what would actually happen if they were that much faster, and for insane populations of the family to suddenly be split into dozens of pockets that didn't interbreed at all.  And, not only that, but these insanely fast, insanely stable, insanely isolated supermicroevolution events couldn't possibly break some invisible, undefinable, unquestionable wall that separates the "types".


 * Good catch, and you are exactly right in what I believe. What is more, I examine scientific news expecting to see exactly this as evidence for creationism, and have found this to be true, confirming my suspicions. Microevolution today is increasingly being discovered to occur within a matter of generations and decades, far more rapidly than it should if macroevolution is true. As such, evolutionists are trying to invent new theories to explain how evolution is speeding up today.


 * That is why one of the evidences for Creationism I provided is rapid microevolutionary rates. I provided some well-sourced examples for evidence of this rapid microevolution which is forcing scientists to rethink their beliefs on microevolutionary rates today. My favorite quote is (emphasis my own):


 * "Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages."


 * --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. Jzyehoshua, I'm not sure of how to say this without seeming harsh, but the problem here is that you're not debating the theory of evolution; you're debating what you want the theory of evolution to be.  Read through your arguments and see how many of them start with "I would think," or "I would expect," or "I tend to think."  The problem is that most of your speculations and expectations are not predicted by the theory of evolution, and many of them outright contradict it.  It would be a bit like an atheist saying "If Creationism is true, then I would expect to see God creating new species all over the place on a daily basis.  Since that doesn't happen, clearly, creationism is false."  Well, that's lovely, but Creationists don't claim that that takes place--it's a silly expectation.


 * Now, getting to specifics:


 * But if all we ever see back in the fossil record are what Creationists would call the same core kinds or designs of creatures we see today, that raises the likelihood that only microevolution occurred within lineages. I would expect to see new Families taxonomically far back in the fossil record, not the exact same ones, if everything chaotically split off from a common ancestor. If the same kinds of life we see today all are evident far back in the fossil record, with the only major exception really being the dinosaurs (which Genesis 1 also refers to in v. 21), then it indicates to me that life did not go between core categories, and has been proceeding within specific core designs.


 * First off, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor. As a Christian myself, I find Creationists presenting their interpretations as if they were the clear Word of God to be INCREDIBLY offensive, and on the border of blasphemy.  Unless you can prove that Genesis 1:21 is referring to dinosaurs, I'm going to ask you not to make that claim.  Unless you can prove that Behemoth was a dinosaur (despite the many features it possesses which a dinosaur would not, and despite the fact that Hebrew tradition clearly identifies Behemoth as Shor Habar, the Great Ox,) please do not claim that "The Bible says Behemoth was a dinosaur."  I'm afraid I cannot and will not be flexible on this; I will not debate with someone who presents his fallible human opinions as the infallible Word of God.


 * With that said, do you really imagine that dinosaurs are the only major extinct type of creature out there? Good heavens.  What about the gorgonopsians?  What about the therocephalians?  What about the probainognathids?  The tritheledontids?  And that's just for starters!  Your idea of the fossil record is highly distorted, and I have to be honest: I think you're only seeing what you want to see, not looking at the whole picture.


 * Again, the overall Classes are identified in Genesis 1, and I spelled out what they were over a year ago back in May 2012. I see two classes of plant life and 8 classes of other life mentioned which there should be absolutely no macroevolution between. I identified there 22 different bird kinds, including 3 owl kinds.


 * Great! So please tell us how we determine which "kind" a new owl species falls in.  Please give us the testable definition.  Please tell us how you would determine whether a species has switched "kinds" or switched "Biblical classes."  You see, Jzyeoshua, I know quite a bit about Baraminology.  I've spoken with some rather well-known Baraminologists--and the truth is, they don't HAVE a developed methodology for objectively determining membership.  It's "holistic," subjective, and any observed evidence is trumped by their predetermined interpretation of the Bible.


 * That's why I said earlier, "If a plant were to go from a form of herb to a fruit tree then that I suppose would be macroevolution". That's the one case with plant life where I could be sure it was macroevolution, if plants clearly went from seed-sowing plants to fruit trees. Because Genesis 1 only identifies two Classes of plants, it makes it much more difficult to be sure macro evolution is occurring as opposed to micro unless going between them. 


 * Read over what you just wrote very carefully, please. What you've just acknowledged is that your definition of "macroevolution" comes, not from any objective and observable criteria, but from what you read in the Bible and how you interpret it.


 * I tend to think all of that life is far younger than believed and influenced by a flood with volcanoes opening deep underwater to fossilize the lowest underwater life first, small marine life more adjusted to hypoxia. I think the deepest ocean-dwelling marine life got fossilized first and affected most by the underwater volcanism, taking on greater appearance of age. You have fossils with the flesh outlines still intact and some even fossilized in the acts of eating, mating, and migrating, showing the fossilization occurred very rapidly. I don't believe it occurred over hundreds of millions of years but that the bulk of the fossil record was the result of a flood and underwater volcanism breaking up Pangaea, and built in roughly a year. I believe the carbonizing, radioactive effects of the volcanism simply enhanced the radiometric decay giving it a later appearance of age to radiometric dating methods.


 * Well, that would make perfect sense...except, of course, for the fact that no Creationist explanation actually accounts for the sorting of fossils we see. They claim that the fossil record is based on which animals would be buried by the Flood first...until you point out that flying pterosaurs are always found much deeper than sloths.  Then they claim that it was hydrological sorting...until you point out that dolphins and icthyosaurs, which have virtually identical hydrological profiles, are always buried at vastly different depths.  Then they claim that it's based on where the animals lived, until you point out that, again, dolphins and icthyosaurs would have lived in the same environments.  Then they shrug and change the subject.  If you point out the massive number of features they CANNOT explain--such as animal tracks in layers right in the middle of the "Flood," MILLIONS of pollen-clay varve pairings in some areas, layers of evaporates sandwiched between layers of "Flood sediment," layers of dry aggregate sandstone sandwiched between layers of "Flood sediment," polystrate fossils with their fine rootlet systems intact and growing through many layers of supposed "Flood sediment"...they simply shrug and hand-wave it with "It was a special Flood."  When you point out that volcanic islands would take hundreds of thousands of years to form at the present rate, they say that the Flood caused it to happen thousands of times faster (with none of the evidence we see for other large volcanic eruptions, mind you!)  When you point out the coral deposits on those islands, which would have taken tens of thousands of years to form, they assure you that the Flood caused THAT to happen faster, too.  So we're to believe that the Flood, in the space of a year, created massive volcanic islands, COOLED those islands, eroded shallow-water shelves on those volcanic islands, deposited coral on the shelves, and caused the coral to grow at supernaturally-fast speeds.  All in one year.  We're also to believe that the Flood super-accelerated radiometric decay--despite the fact that Creationists have absolutely NO explanation for how this could have happened without producing enough waste heat and radiation poisoning to kill every living thing.  Seriously: even the much-vaunted RATE project, when discussing these problems, could only shrug weakly and say, in essence, "Well, we know we're right, so God must have taken away the heat and protected Noah from the radiation somehow."


 * You claim that super-fast "microevolution" is shown in the scientific literature? Have you ever actually done the math on what level of microevolution would be required to diversify from the family level to what we see today?  It would entail multiple speciation events every single day from the Flood until now--and that's just for the currently-extant species.  Yet, of course, we see nothing of the kind, and our entire understanding of genetics suggests that such rapid change would be vastly more than the genome could sustain--it would be fatal.  So: when did this hyperfast, new-species-every-day level of evolution conveniently stop?


 * Earth's population is another fine example. Young Earth Creationists love to claim that, from a population of 8 at the time of the Flood, assuming an average growthrate of .5% per year, you would reach the modern world's population by the present day.  What they never bother to acknowledge is that, for most of recorded history, the growthrate was almost flat (and negative at some points.)  They also never bother to acknowledge that, using their own numbers, you arrive at a total world population of something less than two thousand people at the time of the Exodus--as opposed to the millions who were supposed to take part in the Exodus, PLUS the Egyptians who held them captive, PLUS the many other peoples they encountered!  Quite a difference.  And the Tower of Babel is an even bigger problem, since that supposedly took place scarcely a century after the Flood...and yet, somehow, the world's population went from eight people to a massive enough population to build cities and towers reaching to heaven, and to be "scattered to the four corners of the world" and account for all of the different peoples we see today!


 * Let's be very clear, Jzyehoshua: I don't oppose Creationist claims because I oppose Christianity. I oppose them because I am a Christian, and because I take 1 Thessalonians 5:21 seriously when it commands us to test everything and keep that which is good.  I have been testing Young Earth Creationist claims for the last twenty years, and in all that time, I have yet to find one that holds up under serious scrutiny.    --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor. As a Christian myself, I find Creationists presenting their interpretations as if they were the clear Word of God to be INCREDIBLY offensive, and on the border of blasphemy.  Unless you can prove that Genesis 1:21 is referring to dinosaurs, I'm going to ask you not to make that claim.  Unless you can prove that Behemoth was a dinosaur (despite the many features it possesses which a dinosaur would not, and despite the fact that Hebrew tradition clearly identifies Behemoth as Shor Habar, the Great Ox,) please do not claim that "The Bible says Behemoth was a dinosaur."  I'm afraid I cannot and will not be flexible on this; I will not debate with someone who presents his fallible human opinions as the infallible Word of God.


 * Your response raises the question, if not dinosaurs, then what do YOU think the Bible is referring to when it speaks in Genesis 1:21 of God creating huge sea monsters? Yes, the KJV translates the Hebrew word tanniyn there as whales, but the same word is usually translated elsewhere as "dragon" (21 times) - it is translated 3 times in the Bible by the KJV as serpent, 3 times as whale, and 1 time as sea monster. Furthermore, given the word's usage, it refers to some form of creature which can exist on land as well as the sea. In Exodus 7:9-12, it's the word 3 times translated "serpent", the type of creature that Moses' rod turned into. (Exodus 4:3) If that were a whale or purely marine creature, what would it be doing in Pharaoh's palace? That it can also refer to land creatures is seen from the word's translation as dragon in Isaiah 34:13, Jeremiah 9:11, 10:22, 49:33, and 51:37. They even appear capable of dwelling in freshwater rivers as seen from Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2.


 * Furthermore, in Isaiah 27:1 the word tanniyn translated dragon is used to refer to the leviathan of Job 41, and is described by Isaiah as "leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked <`aqallathown> serpent ; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea ." If you read Job 41, the leviathan is a creature virtually invulnerable to all weapons, with air-tight scales (vv. 15-16), dwelling in the greatest depths of the ocean (vv. 31-32), a terror to the mightiest of warriors (v. 25), and capable of breathing fire. (vv. 18-21: The best explanation I've seen for how the latter could have worked is here.) In Psalms 104:26 it is said to play with ships. It is a tanniyn, and is said to have scales, something that whales certainly do not have. In Jeremiah 51:34 it is stated that tanniyn are known for devouring humans.


 * Given the word's typical translation as dragon by the KJV, the fact that it had scales, its great size and fearsome reputation, and the fact that types of tanniyn are seen living on land, in rivers, and in the ocean depths, I'd say this appears a very good description of a dinosaur.


 * I didn't really address the behemoth, and unlike the leviathan I'm not even sure it's classified as a tanniyn Biblically, but I do think it refers to the ancient brachiosaurs, mainly because Job 40 in describing it says it moves its tail like a cedar (v. 17) and drinks up rivers (v. 23) which certainly does not describe any kind of ox. A cedar is one of the biggest trees in the world, not much short of a brachiosaur has a tail that could fit that description. And drinking up whole rivers does not in any way describe any oxen I know of. A massive herbivore (v. 15) of that size could describe very little alive today, elephants or hippotami maybe, except that neither has the kind of tail that could be remotely called similar to a cedar. The only land mammals I can think of like that would be brachiosaurs.


 * Great! So please tell us how we determine which "kind" a new owl species falls in.  Please give us the testable definition.  Please tell us how you would determine whether a species has switched "kinds" or switched "Biblical classes."  You see, Jzyeoshua, I know quite a bit about Baraminology.  I've spoken with some rather well-known Baraminologists--and the truth is, they don't HAVE a developed methodology for objectively determining membership.  It's "holistic," subjective, and any observed evidence is trumped by their predetermined interpretation of the Bible.


 * That's true of taxonomy in general, that it is holistic, subjective, and open to interpretation. That's why taxonomists are always heatedly disagreeing with one another. There is no clear-cut standard for identifying where one genera stops and another one starts. Subjective definitions are used. I try to go by the clearest, most obvious categories I see. Again, Genesis 1 identifies 10 core classes of life, 7 of animal life, 2 of plant life, and 1 of human life. Evidence of macroevolution between any of those would clearly contradict the Bible and creationism. Beyond that, I'd say evidence of an owl evolving to become anything other than an owl would be an evidence of macroevolution, but I do not believe the evidence exists of species evolving outside their core designs like that. The Bible does not provide more than a basic outline of what kinds of life were created, so trying to get more specific proves difficult if going purely off a Biblical basis. Again, I'd consider broad categories like canines, felines, owls, bears, etc. to be the core designs involved and for me evidence of macroevolution means evolution outside of, or between, these designs.


 * Read over what you just wrote very carefully, please. What you've just acknowledged is that your definition of "macroevolution" comes, not from any objective and observable criteria, but from what you read in the Bible and how you interpret it.


 * To disprove the theory of Creationism means disproving the account presented by the Bible. I take the Bible at face value and consider what it says in light of objective and observable evidence whenever possible. I assume that what it says will line up with said evidence. When discussing whether the Biblical account is true instead of macroevolution, to be sure that the Biblical account is truly disproved, one must use its account as the defining standard. If I were to broaden the definition I could not be sure that its account had ever been truly disproved as a theory.


 * At any rate, my original point was just that I avoid addressing plant life as opposed to animal life when considering evidence for macroevolution because Biblically there are just 2 classes of plant life compared to 8 classes of other life - 7 classes of animal life and 1 class of human life. There's far more distinction and categorization of non-plant life than plant life, so when seeing whether the Bible is right that only microevolution occurred, it's easier to test that by examining non-plant life than plant life.


 * Well, that would make perfect sense...except, of course, for the fact that no Creationist explanation actually accounts for the sorting of fossils we see. They claim that the fossil record is based on which animals would be buried by the Flood first...until you point out that flying pterosaurs are always found much deeper than sloths.  Then they claim that it was hydrological sorting...until you point out that dolphins and icthyosaurs, which have virtually identical hydrological profiles, are always buried at vastly different depths.  Then they claim that it's based on where the animals lived, until you point out that, again, dolphins and icthyosaurs would have lived in the same environments.  Then they shrug and change the subject.  If you point out the massive number of features they CANNOT explain--such as animal tracks in layers right in the middle of the "Flood," MILLIONS of pollen-clay varve pairings in some areas, layers of evaporates sandwiched between layers of "Flood sediment," layers of dry aggregate sandstone sandwiched between layers of "Flood sediment," polystrate fossils with their fine rootlet systems intact and growing through many layers of supposed "Flood sediment"...they simply shrug and hand-wave it with "It was a special Flood."  When you point out that volcanic islands would take hundreds of thousands of years to form at the present rate, they say that the Flood caused it to happen thousands of times faster (with none of the evidence we see for other large volcanic eruptions, mind you!)  When you point out the coral deposits on those islands, which would have taken tens of thousands of years to form, they assure you that the Flood caused THAT to happen faster, too.  So we're to believe that the Flood, in the space of a year, created massive volcanic islands, COOLED those islands, eroded shallow-water shelves on those volcanic islands, deposited coral on the shelves, and caused the coral to grow at supernaturally-fast speeds.  All in one year.  We're also to believe that the Flood super-accelerated radiometric decay--despite the fact that Creationists have absolutely NO explanation for how this could have happened without producing enough waste heat and radiation poisoning to kill every living thing.  Seriously: even the much-vaunted RATE project, when discussing these problems, could only shrug weakly and say, in essence, "Well, we know we're right, so God must have taken away the heat and protected Noah from the radiation somehow."


 * Interesting. However, if volcanism was the primary reason for ancient appearance of age among fossils, a land volcano fossilizing life in its vicinity could have fossilized creatures like pterosaurs making them look much older in age also. Indeed, the circumstances of the fossilization of some pterosaurs clearly suggest volcanism. For example, the best-preserved fossil of Darwinopterus is fossilized with an egg between its thighs, hardly something that occurs as a gradual process. Volcanism quickly engulfing the pterosaur could do that, but otherwise it won't get well-preserved while hatching an egg - particularly since predators would devour it and the egg. The Darwinopterus, like the Pterorhynchus, was discovered in one specific location, the Tiaojishan Formation, both were extremely well-preserved, and furthermore, we have evidence that a massive supervolcano erupted in that area before "collapsing into the sea." We even recently discovered a well-preserved fossil forest in China. My point is that it appears a rare supervolcano erupted on land instead of underwater just before the flood engulfed it, and thus fossilized pterosaurs and much else in the region, giving them a greater appearance of age.


 * As for dolphins and ichthyosaurs, dolphins are freshwater mammals that must come up to surface, so wouldn't they be preserved later than ichthyosaurs? They even needed to sleep near the surface. If Icthyosaurs lived deeper in the ocean depths than dolphins, that could explain why they were fossilized deeper with greater appearance of age from volcanism.


 * As for animal tracks, such fossilization of footprints is indicative of the volcanism which would likely have occurred with a flood and breakup of Pangaea. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the footprints and which layers they were in, are you sure the layer couldn't have been displaced through subduction? I'll admit with your references to polystrate fossils you're getting into territory I haven't personally examined before, do you have any sources for these or the footprints you are referencing? Just from a quick examination of the issue however, wouldn't polystrate fossils indicate they were buried quickly through sedimentation rather than over a long time period? I'm very interested in the particulars of these cases and why you find them so convincing.


 * As for formation of volcanic islands, why do you think they couldn't have occurred during huge supervolcanoes and the tectonic activity required to break up Pangaea? Again, this is not an area I've really looked into before for myself, why are you convinced such long time spans were required for their formation? I'm not familiar with your reef argument either, but a quick search located this article disputing whether some of the alleged reefs are indeed reefs. Without more detail about the particulars involved however, it's tough for me to tell what you are specifically referring to and why you consider it so convincing.


 * Concerning the radiation and heat effects, wouldn't they be muted for survivors on an ark since much of the volcanism was occurring deep within the oceans? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your response raises the question, if not dinosaurs, then what do YOU think the Bible is referring to when it speaks in Genesis 1:21 of God creating huge sea monsters? Yes, the KJV translates the Hebrew word tanniyn there as whales, but the same word is usually translated elsewhere as "dragon" (21 times) - it is translated 3 times in the Bible by the KJV as serpent, 3 times as whale, and 1 time as sea monster.


 * This, to me, is an excellent illustration of how Creationist claims to consistent exegesis and reading "in context" are demonstrably wrong. You're brushing aside the actual translation employed because the word is used to mean other types of creatures elsewhere.  This would be roughly like saying that the word "monster" always applies to one specific type of creature.  So if I say "I went to see a monster movie about Godzilla," and then a week later, while watching football, I say, "Man, that guy's a monster," then following your logic, you would conclude that I was saying the football player was, in fact, Godzilla, or a creature with similar properties.  "Behema" refers to normal cattle, and also to "Behemoth."  "Yom" refers to a normal 24-hour day, and also to an indefinite period of time.  Creationists latch on to the definition that best suits their argument and proclaim that that definition is the proper and only one because...well, because.  Given that I think the creation account is neither literal nor historical fact, but rather poetic, your question really isn't applicable.


 * Given the word's typical translation as dragon by the KJV, the fact that it had scales, its great size and fearsome reputation, and the fact that types of tanniyn are seen living on land, in rivers, and in the ocean depths, I'd say this appears a very good description of a dinosaur.


 * Given the properties it had that dinosaurs lacked (firebreathing, invulnerability, and so forth,) I'd call that a highly selective and cherry-picked conclusion, emphasizing only those traits which agree with the conclusion you desire and brushing aside the ones which contradict it. Leviathan was a unique, supernatural being, as was Behemoth, as was Ziz.  Again, actually reading these things in the cultural context in which they were written establishes this easily.


 * In any event, I don't dispute that your word is that these verses mean dinosaurs. I dispute that your word and God's Word are one and the same, and, as I said, I will ask you to clearly distinguish between the two.  I'm inflexible on few points, but that is one of them.


 * I didn't really address the behemoth, and unlike the leviathan I'm not even sure it's classified as a tanniyn Biblically, but I do think it refers to the ancient brachiosaurs, mainly because Job 40 in describing it says it moves its tail like a cedar (v. 17) and drinks up rivers (v. 23) which certainly does not describe any kind of ox. A cedar is one of the biggest trees in the world, not much short of a brachiosaur has a tail that could fit that description. And drinking up whole rivers does not in any way describe any oxen I know of.


 * Are you claiming that it DOES describe brachiosaurs? My word...that must have been a remarkable brachiosaur, if it could drink up an entire river!  It must have been an even more remarkable brachiosaur given that it had a navel, ate grass like a cow (brachiosaurs digested plant matter like a chicken, using a gizzard, and lacked the jaw structure to chew grass) and could shelter beneath a willow tree or hide among the reeds of the riverbank!  Now, the typical Creationist response is to brush these aside as "figures of speech"--which, again, demonstrates my point, that Creationists frequently cherry-pick only that which agrees with the conclusion they desire.  They tell us that Job 40 is literal HERE, and figurative THERE; that it refers to a literal creature with exactly THESE characteristics, and can't POSSIBLY be anything other than literal...except for this part, and that part, and the other part over here, which are clearly not meant to be taken literally and should be ignored.


 * Why in the world should anyone accept such a piecemeal reading as "the plain and straightforward Word of God?"


 * As for the tail, again we see Creationists adding to what's actually there. If I had a nickel for every Creationist site I've seen that claims "The Bible says Behemoth's tail was as big as a cedar tree!" I'd be able to host my own website to correct such false claims.  Of course, in reality the verse says nothing at all about size; merely that the tail moves "as a cedar."  A cedar tree?  A cedar branch?  A cedar switch?  The word could mean any of those.  Naturally, Creationists assure us that it HAD to mean a cedar tree, and HAD to be referring to the SIZE of the tail rather than just the motion, because...well, because.


 * It does sort of bring up a point, though: you'd sort of think that, in describing a creature that could reach a hundred feet in length and seventy or so feet in height, the author would have made some passing reference to the sheer SIZE of the thing, wouldn't you? And yet, we're left to infer its titanic stature from a mention of how it moves its tail.


 * There's far more distinction and categorization of non-plant life than plant life, so when seeing whether the Bible is right that only microevolution occurred, it's easier to test that by examining non-plant life than plant life.


 * Again, please don't do this. The Bible says nothing about "microevolution."  The Bible does not claim that there are 8 classes of animal life and 2 classes of plant life.  The Bible does not say "There are created kinds, and there's evolution within those kinds, but there can never be evolution outside of those kinds." The Bible simply happens to list some different types of animals and plants.  Everything else is entirely the fallible dogma of VERY fallible human beings.  Please do not present it as what "the Bible says," because it's not.  Don't make an idol of your own arguments.  I try to remain congenial and courteous, but such behavior by Creationists genuinely offends me, and makes it extremely difficult to maintain a polite discourse.


 * Interesting. However, if volcanism was the primary reason for ancient appearance of age among fossils, a land volcano fossilizing life in its vicinity could have fossilized creatures like pterosaurs making them look much older in age also.


 * ...which utterly fails to address my point. We're not talking about how old they look; we're talking about the depth at which they're buried.  How in the world would a "land volcano fossilizing life in its vicinity" bury each and every one of the pterosaurs BELOW ground-dwelling creatures like sloths?  And why did these volcanoes miraculously spare the birds who somehow survived long enough to be buried much higher in the fossil record?  You posit a truly remarkable volcano!


 * Indeed, the circumstances of the fossilization of some pterosaurs clearly suggest volcanism. For example, the best-preserved fossil of Darwinopterus is fossilized with an egg between its thighs, hardly something that occurs as a gradual process.


 * ...and from that, you immediately leap to the conclusion that a volcano did it, and that that volcano was erupting as the result of a Flood, and that somehow, every single other pterosaur fozzilized also happened to be conveniently near a volcano--despite the fact that there is no corresponding geological evidence of such volcanism, and the fossils are encased in stone which is not in any way characteristic of volcanism. In fact, most of the pterosaur fossils I have personally seen are in limestone, not tuff, and I have never heard of a single one encased in tuff.  Such a remarkable fossil would surely receive coverage.  So now you're also asking me to believe that the volcano spewed out, not volcanic ash that would turn into tuff, but the calcium carbonate required to create limestone. As I said before: that's some volcano!


 * My point is that it appears a rare supervolcano erupted on land instead of underwater just before the flood engulfed it, and thus fossilized pterosaurs and much else in the region, giving them a greater appearance of age.


 * ...but somehow spared the sloths, the moles, the squirrels, the cattle, most of the birds, and the petunias...among many, many other things. So to sum up the properties of this supervolcano, it could explode and selectively bury only certain species (conveniently, exactly those species which deep-time geology places in the Cretaceous) same while leaving other, much less mobile species completely untouched; it somehow buried these fossils rapidly, but not in volcanic ash, which would have turned into tuff; it somehow affected these species WORLDWIDE in EXACTLY the same ways; it laid down a TITANIC layer of sediment, which in deep time geology corresponds to a period of about a hundred and sixty million years; and somehow, some way, this worldwide titanic eruption which instantaneously buried some animals also allowed others to go about their activities in a leisurely fashion; we have not only lengthy trails of tracks in those layers, but also intact animal burrows.  Truly, this volcano was at LEAST as remarkable as the volcanos which created all of the volcanic islands in less than a year while leaving no trace of such massive volcanic eruptions!


 * Jzyehoshua, I apologize for the acerbic tone of the above, but it doesn't hold up. Young Earth arguments are a steady succession of one ad hoc "just so" story after another, and when you look at the big picture, they fall apart.  They're not an attempt to explain the evidence, they're an attempt to explain away the evidence.  Radiometric dating is wrong because volcanoes somehow, through some unknown mechanism, changed the physical decay rates of every single radioactive substance on Earth.  Those millions of annual pollen-clay varve pairs aren't really annual because, uhm, turbidity sometimes lays down layers faster.  This doesn't in any way explain the pollen concentrations in those layers, or how turbidity could put down those millions of layers when it would have involved violent reversals of current roughly every 2 seconds for the entire duration of the Flood...but we'll say "turbidity" anyway.  We see starlight millions of years old?  We're in a gigantic black hole that's slowing down time here on Earth.  Wait, that would mean all of the starlight from outside the planet would be massively more intense, such that it would produce sufficient heat to kill everything?  Err, moving on...  Rock layers display evidence of increased insolation in precisely the  23:41:100 ratio which is predicted by the Milankovich cycle, thus corresponding exactly with the 23,000, 41,000, and 100,000 year cycles in which astronomers have calculated that Earth should get the most sun?  By this point, the Creationists usually just stop responding.  And, of course, there's more, and more, and more--and the Creationists simply ignore it.  If it's not a piece of evidence for which they've developed a pre-packaged apologetic, they simply shrug it off and say "A lot happened in the Flood."  Again, that's not explaining the evidence.


 * That's true of taxonomy in general, that it is holistic, subjective, and open to interpretation. That's why taxonomists are always heatedly disagreeing with one another. There is no clear-cut standard for identifying where one genera stops and another one starts.


 * I expected to hear you say that; it's almost the inevitable response. However, can you not see the glaring flaw in invoking tu quoque here?  Setting aside the fact that cladistics is a FAR more rigorous and objective methodology than Baraminology--which it is--I will grant you that it is holistic and open to interpretation.  Here's the thing, though: it has to be, because in biology, there are no fixed, objective species.  "Species" is entirely a man-made category assigned to a certain range of lifeforms.


 * Now do you see why your attempted tu quoque fails? Biology provides no easy way of identifying fixed, objective, unchangeable categories of life because biology claims no fixed, objective, unchangeable categories of life.  Baraminology claims that it's absolute, proven fact that there are fixed, objective, unchangeable categories of life...and then, when asked how to identify them, weakly shrugs and says "It's a holistic process. We're a young science.  Give us time."


 * Well, meaning no offense, but they've had more than sixty years. You'd think that would be enough time to at least come up with a working definition of their central term.


 * Just from a quick examination of the issue however, wouldn't polystrate fossils indicate they were buried quickly through sedimentation rather than over a long time period? I'm very interested in the particulars of these cases and why you find them so convincing.


 * I can find you references, but it will take some time. You're essentially asking for sources on twenty years of accumulated reading in the field, as well as personal trips.  It's easy enough to go to a Creationist website and look up pre-packaged apologetics and claims, but it takes much more effort to actually put those claims to the test.  It takes reading in the field, and it takes getting OUT in the field.  The trees I'm thinking of specifically are in Joggins, Nova Scotia, and I would personally recomment going there and seeing them for yourself with a good geologist.  To answer your question: of COURSE they were buried by rapid sedimentation.  We see that happening TODAY, in swamps, in peat bogs, in areas near rivers that are prone to inundation.  I could take you half a mile from my house and SHOW you a tree being buried in that fashion.  That's exactly why it's such a wild leap to claim that a global, cataclysmic Flood was needed.  Deep time geology has no difficulty explaining such fossils, but I have yet to hear ANY reasonable Creationist explanation of the features of polystrate fossils they dislike.  I have never heard a Creationist explain the fossils with their rootlets intact; I have never heard a Creationist explain the fossils that display a second set of roots halfway up the tree trunk.  Now, going down the road to the swamp, I have no problem explaining that; a tree gets partially buried, and over time, sends out new roots close to the new surface, then goes about its business.  Simple, logical, observable.  From Creationists trying to make the evidence fit a global Flood?  Silence.  And they've BEEN silent since the 1800's.  Did you know that it wasn't Darwin who caused geologists to abandon the idea of a young Earth?  It was these polystrate fossils--the selfsame ones which Creationists like to claim are proof of the Flood--that killed Flood geology as a credible discipline.  The fact that Creationists cite them while carefully avoiding any mention of the fatal problems they pose is breathtaking hypocrisy on their part.


 * As for formation of volcanic islands, why do you think they couldn't have occurred during huge supervolcanoes and the tectonic activity required to break up Pangaea? Again, this is not an area I've really looked into before for myself, why are you convinced such long time spans were required for their formation? I'm not familiar with your reef argument either, but a quick search located this article disputing whether some of the alleged reefs are indeed reefs. Without more detail about the particulars involved however, it's tough for me to tell what you are specifically referring to and why you consider it so convincing.


 * Would an explanation perhaps be better coming from a Bible-believing, inerrantist (albeit Old Earth) Christian organization? I don't agree with Accuracy In Genesis on everything, but they cover the essentials pretty well here.


 * 


 * Concerning the radiation and heat effects, wouldn't they be muted for survivors on an ark since much of the volcanism was occurring deep within the oceans?


 * No. First off, your idea that the level of radiometric acceleration required could be produced by any level of volcanism is, as far as I can tell, pulled completely out of thin air.  Second, the amount of acceleration required would produce sufficient heat to BOIL the seas.  We're not talking about "The Earth would get a little warmer."  We're talking about "The Earth's crust would be fused to glass."


 * But don't take my word for it. Here's what Larry Vardiman of the Institute for Creation Research had to say:


 * Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. (Vardiman, L. 2007. RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems. Acts & Facts. 36 (12): 6.)


 * Naturally, since Vardiman very much WANTS this to be true, he then goes on to suggest a "just so" scenarios, which amounts to "Maybe the cosmos expanded rapidly at exactly that moment, and that cooled down the Earth!" Once again, we see the Creationist effort not to explain the evidence, but to explain it away and make it fit with the predetermined, desired conclusion.


 * Test everything; keep that which is good.


 * --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)