User talk:Jzyehoshua

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

ARCHIVES: User_talk:Jzyehoshua/archive1

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Jzyehoshua!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Good to see you are a person and not just a bunch of numbers after all. DamoHi 00:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am pleasantly surprised by that fact at times as well. Turned out I was participating in more discussion than expected, so I ultimately decided to just take thine advice. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Dude, you are awesome! Please keep up the crazy. I haven't been this interested in RW in a long time. Would it be too much to ask for you to turn it up to 11? Do you think you have it in you? --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you define 'crazy' as anyone with a different opinion than you? Lets start by establishing some definitions and specifics here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I know right, isn't he great! Setting up a wiki from a Christian fundamentalist point of view just to mess with people, not THAT'S devotion. Two thumbs up Jzyehoshua! Keep it up!ClothCoat (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I bet you think I put groundbreaking, heavily sourced pages on manuscript evidence and archaeological evidence for the Bible on the site as parody, too. And those unique, detailed, and well-sourced points on abortion and religious freedom must be parody too, right? I see your liberal deductive powers (sic) are in full swing right now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh man you are on a role. I can only admire someone who puts so much energy into trolling. I'm a social democrat by the way, not exactly liberal, so please say something trollish about social democrats to annoy me, that would be so funny.ClothCoat (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by 'social democrat' unless you're referring to the pro-life Democrats, DFLA, or Democrats For Life of America. I actually very much admire them, even wrote an eBook defending their role in opposing Obamacare, back in 2010.[1] It was an adaptation of a broader work, The Zambrano Report. Anyway, I very much admire Kirsten Day and DFLA even though I dislike the broader Democratic Party. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Even though I ended up voting for Romney (after careful examination of his record on abortion and economics) I not only advocated for him at the time of the elections, but also pro-life Democrats whose voting records I liked. I was very happy that many pro-life Democrats were re-elected. Though I have over the past year moved openly in support of the GOP for the first time and in complete opposition to the DNC, I still remain committed to support of DFLA and believe in voting for politicians on a case by case basis given their voting records. I have no problem with voting for Republicans, Democrats, and 3rd party candidates on the same ballot, and have been doing so since I began voting in 2004. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If you like them then you're going to HATE me. Social democrat as in advocate for social democracy, "left-libertarian" is another name for us sometimes. Anyway I REALLY think it would do you good to read the section on Jonanism. Even if you dislike it just look over it real quick. ClothCoat (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Wut? Social democracy is left-libertartian? That's not how we see it in Europe (says a Liberal, but not a liberal as used in the US). Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there appears to be some serious difference between the definitions of conservative and liberal going on between the U.S. and Europe. I've even heard that in Europe some define liberal the way an American would define a conservative and vice versa, although whether that's true or not I haven't bothered checking into. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, a libertarian, that is pretty much the opposite of what I am. You'd be socially liberal and more right-wing on economics, I am socially conservative but actually more left-wing on economics (I dislike Invisible Hand and Trickle Down theory for example, support business regulation, oppose unrestricted free trade, etc.).
I don't "hate" people because of political differences though, my views are so diverse and specific I literally disagree with everyone at some point or another. Disagreement is what makes life interesting, I enjoy hearing out other points of view and reconsidering my own to gain a refined attitude towards the issues. I will look over the Jonanism stuff. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's good to know that you don't just blindly support the Gop. Anyway, left-libertarian is left on economic issues and libertarian on social issues. Mostly. Your position would be closer to "Authoritarian populism" (like Huey Long), but not necessarily ultra-authoritariansm (I hope).ClothCoat (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't blindly support the GOP, I oppose any form of party-line voting. I've gained confidence they are the best party for me to advocate for, but I carefully examine voting records and decide which candidates to vote for on a case-by-case basis. These are my latest voting records.[2] is also good for checking voting records.
True, my position seems to be some form of populism from what I can tell, although I'm not sure about the authoritarianism. On this test I actually fall right around where Ghandi does in left libertarianism, but others have identified me as populist.[3] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the Jonanism stuff, but I think you're looking at it rather selectively if I may say so. I've been voting 3rd party since 2004 and can prove it, I voted against both Bush and Obama back in 2004 (as a resident of Illinois Obama ran for the U.S. Senate against Alan Keyes that year). I've been consistently socially conservative and anti-war, anti-death penalty and creationist, as seen from my posts even back then.[4]
However, in spite of my more moderate views on numerous issues, and long-time support for 3rd party candidates and pro-life Democrats, look at how people on this site try to label me as an extreme right-wing conservative! They try to label everyone they disagree with as conservative or far right-wing as much as they criticize conservatives of doing the same to liberals. I suppose in this case I did confuse you for a liberal instead of libertarian, and apologize for the mistake. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Lol I wasn't being sarcastic I actually fully believe you when you say you've voted for 3rd parties and Democrats. Also, we don't label everyone far right, see our Category:Right of Reason of conservatives we have deemed sane. Anyway, you are, technically speaking, far-right, but that isn't necessarily an insult, it's simply a political designation that can mean any number of things, from monarchists to Christian dominionists to racists, all of which are ideas that may oppose each other (many fundamentalists are anti-racist, for instance). The GOP is a Radical#Right right party, but it's not far-right. Simply put, you're a different form of far-right politics of a paeloconservative branch. Most far-right activists are moderate to left leaning on economics, but only when it applies to their "group" (countrymen, people of the same religion, etc.) Understand when I call you "far-right" that it's not meant as an insult, it's just the closest thing I could put to classifying your politics. Also, we hate Stalinists as well, who are not far-right but instead far-left. We are firm believers in the Horseshoe theory, which you may also like to take a look at.
For more about your economics and social policy see Third Positionism and scroll to the bottom, where their will be mention of Paleoconservatism and far-right politics. Also be sure to read about "Authoritarian parties" under the in the Horseshoe theory article.ClothCoat (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess it depends on which issues. I actually hold the position held by the majority of Americans on abortion, that it should be legal only very early on in pregnancy and in rare exceptions like rape and life of the mother. Only 27% of Americans believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester/12 weeks of pregnancy, basically your far-left liberals.[5] My position on evolution is actually the mainstream position also, the largest group of Americans, 46%, believe in young earth creationism, and a 2007 poll showed 66% say young earth creation is either definitely or probably true.[6] And healthcare? 72% of Americans say the mandate is unconstitutional, again there's a fringe 28%, liberals, who disagree.[7] Marriage is a more split issue, but less than 20 years ago was not at all. In 1996 when Gallup started polling only 27% supported gay marriage, and as late as 2009 only 40% did. Since then it's been going between 48% and 53%, but my views are hardly far-right.[8] Believe it or not, my views on all those issues are actually mainstream and held by most Americans (except marriage where it's now a roughly 50-50 split).
And on economics I'm right in the middle, in my opposition to invisible hand and trickle down theory, not to mention unrestricted free trade and support for regulation of CEO pay and big business, I am at best a moderate and certainly not right-wing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're a third positionist with far right leanings. You're just not radical right. You're a Christian Fundamentalist (which isn't the majority of Americans) while also distrustful of capitalism. Click on Third Position and scroll down to the last paragraph, just trust me.ClothCoat (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no similarity to paleoconservatism as described there, it involves "defending the West against swarthy foreign forces" and I've opposed the Iraq War and War on Terror since 2004, making me actually less paleoconservative than the majority of Americans who voted for George W. Bush. I support foreign aid for other countries. Maybe the only position you could argue I have any similarity to that would be on trade where I oppose trading with countries whose minimum wages are too low like China and Mexico for economic and ethical reasons, because the result is destruction of U.S. jobs and harm to worker wages worldwide. But since my position on that is actually held by many on the left too, you'd have to group them in as paleoconservatives also if just going by that issue alone.
Ultimately, 30% of Americans believe the Bible is literally true and 49% to be inspired by God, a combined 79% which would be a clear majority.[9] Again, the 17% of liberals who say it's a book of fables or legends are in a minute minority. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(I think you might want to brush up on your maths here mate!) (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Paleoconservatives are anti-war, like you. That quote is about immigrants or the consequences of an overspread military. In fact, paleoconservatives are on of the few groups to oppose direct American involvement in pretty much every war since WW1, some may make an exception of WW2. Also, argumentum ad populum isn't very strong, and that 17 percent isn't necessarily liberal, and some of that 49% isn't necessarily not liberal or conservative, you're jumping to conclusions.ClothCoat (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Trouble is that I don't support vitriol towards immigrants either. My position on immigration is that because 1-2 million legal Mexican-American U.S. citizens were deported during the Great Depression, we should make publicly available records of which citizens were wrongly deported so illegals descended from former citizens can gain the citizenship they should have. I also dislike the history of the Mexican-American War. As a third-generation Mexican-American myself, I am fortunate my own family wasn't wrongly deported in the 1930s to free up jobs for Caucasian-Americans during the Great Depression. At any rate, I support border security only to stop illegal drug/weapon trafficking and terrorist infiltration, and frequently make the point the main reason for U.S. job loss is the billions of low-paid overseas workers due to outsourcing, not the millions of illegal immigrants. I do not support demonizing illegals (and I have worked with some in the past at various jobs) who I think are just trying to provide for their families in many cases, so long as we refuse to right the past wrongs of the Mexican Repatriation.[10]
Frankly, I think you're trying to categorize me as something I'm not, to label me, so you can feel more certain of what stereotype I fall under. I'm not a paleoconservative from what I can tell. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
My bad actually I misinterpreted the quote it actually seems to pertain to "free trade". Paleoconservatives are vehemently opposed to "laissez-faire" in part because they believe it gives countries like China a chance to screw us over or hurt our economies. On immigration they do tend to dislike massive immigration on the grounds that it hurts the middle class, though a couple of the VERY old school ones are for open borders. Anyway I don't think your line of thought is perfectly in line with paleoconservatism (rarely do we agree with everything in a philosophy) but your line of thought is closest to that, Third Positionist paeloconservatism. Based on some of what you've said I don't think you really understand far-right paleoconservatism so let me break it down for you.
1.Christian Fundamentalism. Almost universally Christian fundamentalists are closer to paleoconservatism than not. Most Paleoconservatives support teacher led school prayer (or something like it) and teaching young earth creationism in school. They see protestant Christianity as something that strengthens a nation by giving people something to unite behind (e.g. Nationalism), and believe that churches are necessary for a strong community and moral values. They are more disdainful of homosexuality than neoconservatives tend to be, though the degree of hostility to it varies from one to another. Some want to teach children it's a sin and discourage it, others want to encourage gays to try to "go straight". The more extreme ones want to lock up gays or repeal protection for hate crimes against gays. Most also believe in abstinence programs. They dislike Islam, seeing it as a negative force in America (though they don't care so much if it's in other countries)
2.Third positionism in economics. They want tariffs and regulation of big business, because they believe it protects the middle class (E.g. Producerism). However they are also disdainful of "welfare programs", believing it encourages laziness. They are pro-union because they think it helps the middle class and are pro small business. They like the idea of Distributism but don't believe the state should be involved in redistribution of land, or other forms of "socialism". They are mainly against big business because they see it as a threat to Christianity and middle class families.
3.Social positions. They are very anti-gun control, and opposed to government healthcare or welfare checks. They see charity (churches in particular) as being more effective. They are not opposed to legal immigration but dislike mass immigration or open borders.
4.Isolationism, for the most part. They oppose pretty much every war that they can, only believing in attacking if attacked first. They hate the military industrial complex, which puts them at odds with neoconservatives. They generally believe we should leave Israel alone and not be involved with it, though some may support Israel because it's in the bible.

I know you may not have the EXACT same views but they seem to be more or less paleoconservative. The American Independent Party and the States' Right Democratic Party were both paleoconservative, but of different types of paleoconservatism.ClothCoat (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think this doesn't sound like what I am. I don't support teacher-led school prayer, or holding up specific denominations in schools, unless private schools. I generally dislike forcing anyone's opinions on students, whether Christian or liberal opinions.
I don't believe in nationalism, again I am a firm believer in examining issues and politicians on a case-by-case basis and individualism of conscience. I don't believe in party-line voting or group think.
I've always supported welfare programs, as I've mentioned elsewhere, although I think they should require work in exchange per 2 Thessalonians 3:10. I actually am endorsing as part of my 2014 proposed budget (which I've contacted the GOP about) a public works program and have not included ANY cuts to welfare whatsoever.[11]
Though I support regulation of business I also support regulation of unions, and do not support the Disclose Act for example because Democrats carve loopholes for unions in it. I believe both business and unions if unregulated cause problems, and point to the auto industry, whose union-negotiated "gold-plated" healthcare benefits resulted in it going bankrupt.[12] At any rate, I am as critical of unions as of big business.
Actually I rarely address gun control because I'm more or less indifferent about it. I believe the right to gun ownership should be protected but I'm still deciding to what extent I think assault weapons should be restricted and background checks required.
Again, I actually support single-payer healthcare and welfare systems, one of my criticisms of Obamacare was that he ditched single-payer universal healthcare for all in a deal with the hospital industry. I wrote my own bill back in 2010 designing a single-payer healthcare system as an alternative to Obamacare.[13]
So in summary, I still see vast differences between what you're describing and where I stand. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm, interesting, I don't see why you're so anti-liberal, to be honest. Maybe because you're pro-life but even though you claim to be a moderate on the issue, which many liberals are as well. Again, I'd have to say that you're a populist Authoritarian, I should add this to the Third Position page under "similar movements" since other Christian Fundamentalists share your sentiments of being both socially far-right and economically left.ClothCoat (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually refused to take sides, my Conservapedia profile had said for over year until recently (when I updated it) that:
"I do not side with political parties. I voted 3rd party for president in both 2004 (1st election voted in) and 2008, for Michael Peroutka and Bob Barr, respectively. I regularly vote for Democrats, Republicans, and 3rd party candidates on the same ballot. My closest affiliations are to DFLA (Pro-life Democrats), the NRLC, and the Constitution Party (conservative 3rd party). I am generally conservative on social issues and liberal/moderate on everything else, with some exceptions (oppose the death penalty e.g.). I like to criticize both the Republican and Democratic parties. I have been a staunch opponent of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush since 2004, and can prove it (per my 2004 posting history at RenewAmerica's forum). I like to joke that I am the Pro-life, Creationist, bleeding-heart liberal that everyone warned you about. For specifics, see the bottom of this page."[14]
I updated it just yesterday in fact to state, "After frustration with the constant dishonesty of the Democrats in the 2012 elections, I began openly supporting Romney in the last few months, and now openly support the GOP while opposing Democrats." I've historically been a conservative but not a Republican, and a strong supporter of the Constitution Party and Pro-Life Democrats. My disgust at Obama, who again like Bush, I've opposed since 2004, and the blatant dishonest of him and the DNC in constantly flat-out lying to the American people, has led to my coming off the fence so to speak, and fully endorsing the GOP now. I've always had something of a dislike for liberals given bad experiences with the liberal bias at Wikipedia though (I detailed my experience here[15] - or started to, I still need to finish). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be sure to document these views under the Third Position page, as it's basically the following of Christian fundamentalism into political law, blurring the lines between left and right. Keep in mind that doesn't make you a centrist though, so much as it makes you a blend between the far-right and left. Fringe, basically, like Lyndon LaRouche. ClothCoat (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, document away, although by this point, I think paleoconservative is becoming so broad a definition it encompasses all but the 25% of far-left liberals in America. I think you're just broadly lumping every single Christian into the category who disagrees with the far-left agenda, regardless of how varied their views on economics, foreign policy, immigration, and gun control might be. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also by this point, I'm unclear to what extent you're applying a definition of "Third Position" to others, or creating a position to identify them. Isn't this a form of association fallacy gone haywire? Seems like you're trying to lump in every socially conservative person as associated somehow with this "Third Position" in an attempt to link them to neo-nazism, etc., and redefining Third Position in such a way they all fall under the definition, which comes across as absurd... especially since the Democratic Party were always the ones who opposed civil rights historically and the GOP supported them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
But I don't think you're a paleoconservative, nor are most Christians, but I think you're a fundamentalist in the same vein as the Prohibition party, blurring the left and far-right. Far-left agenda? I wasn't aware they're communists in our government. Also I'm not putting you under "third positionism" itself but under "similar movements" which blend the left and right together, like libertarianism or Hard-liners, stop jumping to conclusions.ClothCoat (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you being socially conservative makes someone similar to a "third positionist" but I think that combing that with left economics and foreign policy, as well a weakness for conspiracy theories, does. For instance you are a global warming denialist and are convinced that white supremacists are working with gay rights activists, and that abortion is a planned "black genocide". It's the merging of so much "wackiness" that it's like third positionism.ClothCoat (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but why do you think I'm associated with Third Positionism at all? Seems like you tried presenting this definition that did not at all apply to me, and then when I didn't fall into the category, you decide you need to change the definition so it includes me. And when the lede paragraph says, "Third Positionism is a peculiar subspecies of political wingnut movements which attempt to mix neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, and far-right ultra-nationalism with whatever economic and social issues of the left they want to throw into their toxic stew, including anything from neo-paganism, feminism, animal rights, and radical environmentalism, all the way over to old-left ideologies such as anarchism and Marxism, and nearly-forgotten archaic economic ideas such as Distributism and Social Credit."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you trying to link to "neo-nazism and anti-semitism" what by most standards would be considered political moderates, namely anyone without far-left views? Again, the views on abortion, creationism, marriage, etc. that I described were all mainstream views.
Seems like you're trying to affiliate somehow everyone who disagrees with you as associated with objectionable things in a form of association fallacy. That you broaden the category to automatically include my views, after they otherwise failed to include any of your definitions, comes off as just a tad dishonest. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well that seems to include just about everyone, huh? If they are just plain conservative, both socially and economically, I'll bet you call them an extreme, far right-wing nut. And if they are socially conservative but hold any moderate views, they are Third Positionists linked to neo-nazis and anti-semites. Seems like you have a bias that anyone who holds socially conservative views is necessarily "whacky" even though since it's your own views which are in the minority according to polling, you don't seem to consider that might be true of your own views instead. I actually think global warming exists, it's why it occurs that I question. And I never said abortion was a "black genocide", that's a strawman. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again no, I'm not trying to link you to neo-Nazism. Look under the similar movements area, that's what I was talking about, libertarianism is hardly anti-Semitic. It only pertains to movements that blend the left and right, which you appear to do. From what you've said on your wiki you also dislike evolution and want to "teach the controversy", and you dislike homosexuality to the point where you think they're working with white supremacists, and have other ideas that are considered "fringe". I won't bother adding it if it upsets you that much and because your views are getting too confusing too understand (ranting about democrats one second then praising pro-life ones, or hating liberals while siding with them on almost everything except gay rights and abortion, releasing the "climategate" emails on your wiki then saying you believe in global warming). ps check out argumentum ad populum for a response to the fact you love citing "gallop". The reason you are outside the mainstream is because your wiki presents a Christian Fundamentalist point of view, which is fringe. But I bet your going to backtrack on that too and act surprised I would ever say such a thing.ClothCoat (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not just make a page on political moderates who hold views that are a merge of left-wing and right-wing beliefs then? On a page attacking "third positionism" as linked to neo-nazism and anti-semitism, most people will take offense to being considered part of a "similar movement" - notwithstanding that my views are so unique I highly doubt I'm part of any "similar movement" or a movement at all.
My Conservapedia profile at the bottom of the page has for over a year now made clear where I stand on issues like global warming.[16] I've stated there, "I support protecting the environment. I want our rainforests protected and land use optimized. I support regulations on pollution by corporate excesses. I think those who stand naked on icebergs are just posturing and attention-seeking buffoons, but reasonable steps to preserve and protect our Creator-given resources as faithful stewards I wholeheartedly support and endorse. While I recognize Global Warming is occurring, 'ClimateGate' made me more suspicious of the Green Energy movement, Al Gore, and the scientific community backing Global Warming. I personally think the main problem is deforestation, that growing global population is a contributor as well, and that pollution is often singled out for political reasons and Green Industry profits."
I examined the ClimateGate emails in-depth with particular attention to their relation to radiometric dating methodologies like dendrochronology and ice core dating because those methods are discussed by the same scientists, apparently the same specialists involved in the Climategate controversy are those known for such dating methods. That does not mean I deny the reality of global warming.
Argumentum ad populum wouldn't be so relevant if you didn't keep using the terms "whacky" and "extreme." Polling shows it's not my views which are extreme, it's the views of liberals that are extreme on issues like abortion, evolution, and the healthcare mandate. Otherwise you're just defining "extreme" in a way that says you're right and most Americans are wrong, claiming most Americans are "extreme" and you aren't, which makes no sense. You keep calling my views "fringe" but then refuse to consider the Gallup evidence showing they are not "fringe" but mainstream and held by most Americans. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And by the way, when you label the views of others as "extreme", "whacky", or "fringe" you are yourself using an ad populum. I only cited the Gallup polls in response to your own ad populum argument that my views are extreme and fringe. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And your view that gay activists are working with white supremacists? Again "fringe" is a loosly defined term but on the right, pertains to fundamentalists and on the left to anarcho-communists and the like. However young earth creationism is "whacky", no matter how many people believe in it. Global warming, well... I don't see why you had to release the climategate emails, you should make it more clear in your wiki that you believe in it. We have an article on Centrism but I really don't see how a Christian Fundamentalist can qualify as a "centrist", especially in a global sense of the word. What evidence do you have to support young earth creationism?ClothCoat (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
My original argument was just that the Democratic Party was always opposed to civil rights. The following is my typical post when debating on the subject:
The GOP always voted in higher percentages for civil rights bills from the 1860s when Republican Abraham Lincoln overturned slavery to the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was passed.
-1865: 13th amendment banning slavery passed by Republican president Abraham Lincoln with unanimous Republican support and most Democrats opposed.
-1866: 14th amendment giving due process and equal protection to all races passes with 100% of Democrats voting no in House and Senate.
-1870: 15th amendment giving all the right to vote regardless of race passes house with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition.
-1875: Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed by Republican president U.S. Grant with 92% Republican support and 100% Democrat opposition.
-1919: Republican House passes amendment giving women the right to vote, 85% of Republicans vote yes to 54% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans in Senate vote yes but nearly half of Democrats vote no.
-1924: Republican president Calvin Coolidge signs law passed by Republican Congress giving Native Americans the right to vote.
-1957: Republican president Dwight Eisenhower signs the Republican Party's 1957 civil rights act.
-1964: Civil Rights Act ending segregation and voter restrictions is passed with 80% of Republicans in the House and 82% in the Senate voting yes, but only 63% of Democrats voting yes in the House and 69% in the Senate. After passing the Civil Rights Act, Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson brags "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-1965: Voting Rights Act passed to remove racial voter discriminations against blacks and hispanics with 82% of Republicans voting yes to 78% of Democrats in the House, and 94% of Republicans in the Senate to 73% of Democrats in the Senate.
-1973: Only 2 of the 112 racist Democrats who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 actually switched to the Republican Party, John Jarman and Strom Thurmond. All the racist Democrats who'd opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s were the same ones who in the 1970s supported Roe v. Wade. They went straight from supporting lynching to supporting abortion.
My key point was just that the liberal 1970s movements were created too shortly after the 1960s civil rights bills, and since Republicans voted in higher percentages than Democrats for both bills, clearly the Democrats were still the party of racism in the 1960s, and thus the Democrats when creating the abortion and gay rights movements less than a decade later were still the party of racism. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"1973: Only 2 of the 112 racist Democrats" Just not true. How many time are you going to repeat this abject falsehood? Hipocrite 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How is it false? There were 112 racist Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrats voted in higher percentages against the CRA than Republicans did. I even named every single Democrat who voted against the CRA and examined them to see which ones switched parties.[17] Only 2 of those 112 switched. Ergo, claiming that the parties switched earlier than 1964 is a lie. There were 112 Democrats who voted against the CRA, 91 Representatives and 21 Senators. This shouldn't be controversial. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, since more Democrats opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Republicans as a percentage of their respective parties, and these Democrats remained in the Democrat Party, that means the Democratic Party was still the party of racism at least as late as the 1970s. Any switch by the politicians themselves had to have come around 1980 or later. As far as the politicians involved, the Democrats were still the party of racism in the 1970s when the pro-choice and gay rights movements were created. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
"Only 2 of those 112 switched." Not true. I've asked you a number of times how many party switchers it would take for you to change your opinion. You've ignored that question over and over. I'll ask it again - how many party switchers would it take? Hipocrite 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember you asking that but I have no problem answering it. The most objective way I can think of off the top of my head to determine a solid number would just be checking the vote totals and seeing how many Democrats would need to switch parties for there to be a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voting against the CRA.[18]
I checked the percentages, you'd need a bare minimum of 25 racist Democrat Representatives switching to the Republican Party, and 4 racist Democrat Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act switching to the Republican Party. The vote totals had been 153-91 for Democrats in the House (62.70%) and 136-35 (79.53%) for Republicans, if 25 racist Democrats switched to being Republicans in the House that would become 153-66 for Democrats (69.86%) and 136-60 for Republicans (69.39%). The vote totals had been 46-21 for Democrats in the Senate (68.66%) and 27-6 for Republicans (81.82%), if 4 racist Democrats switched to being Republicans in the Senate that would become 46-17 for Democrats (73.02%) and 27-10 for Republicans (72.97%).
So by my math, a bare minimum of 29 racist Democrats who'd opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act would have needed to switch parties for there to have been even the slightest of margins where more Republicans would have voted against the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. However, only 2 racist Democrats ended up switching of the 29 needed, not nearly enough, meaning the Democrats remained the party of racism into the 1970s. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So when the facts change, you change your argument. Got it. Hipocrite 12:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Change my argument how? Not sure what you're referring to. You asked me how many party switchers it would take and I provided a detailed, logical answer. Not sure why you think I switched my argument. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as young earth creationism, I've detailed my thoughts on the matter here.[19] Specifically:
  • The fossil record's consistent stasis and punctuated appearance of new species as though suddenly created is more indicative of creationism than evolution to me. I think punctuated equlibrium was an attempt to write off the evidence and make evolution unfalsifiable, essentially creating a new theory to make evolution compatible with evidence which had contradicted it and supported creationism.
  • The categorization of ancient species similar to today's is for me another strong evidence of creationism. There are ancient octopi, sharks, pangolins, etc. the farther back one goes in the fossil record. Categorization is very similar to today's and consistent with God making core designs or created 'kinds' as stated in Genesis ch. 1.
  • Evolution today is only micro, we see moths adapting as moths, finches as finches, but never see them becoming anything but moths or finches. They stay consistent with their core designs per creationism and microevolution.
  • Sterility in interspeciary breeding and the inability of clearly different species to breed at all is for me an evidence that there were core designs which cannot mix, there was no common ancestor from which they all came, but different lineages.
  • I also examined the specific evidence for catastrophism and canopy theory as well; specific creationist theories.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
One last thing, out of curiosity, really. Do you think gays should try to make themselves straight, if they want to go to heaven? ClothCoat (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think God will convict them of it naturally if they become Christians.[20] I'm not convinced homosexuality is wrong more than other types of lust like pornography, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Is a guy who sleeps around with a bunch of girls, or someone addicted to porn, less guilty of lust than a homosexual? I think we're all guilty of God and all struggle with the lust issue to one degree or another. I don't support an immoral definition of marriage but I'd support removing government control of marriage altogether. I am not interest in blaming gays or singling them out, we are all guilty before God, I just want the nation to have moral, democratically-elected laws. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:04, 5 Sept ember 2013 (UTC)

A Simple Question[edit]

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.[21]
  • 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,[22] 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.[23] 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)
  • 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.[24] 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.[25] 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[26] 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.'"[27]
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."[28]
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."[29]
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."[30] 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."[31]
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)[32]
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


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 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."[33], "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."[34], 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."[35] The discoveries of early bipedality wreaked havoc on the conventional theory of evolution as I detailed here.[36] 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."[37] 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."[38] 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)[39]
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.
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.[40]
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:, 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.[41] 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. "[1]
"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."[2]
"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."[3]
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.[42] 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.[43] Furthermore, I think much volcanism may have actually occurred underwater meaning lower material could have actually been more greatly affected in decay.[44] --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.--ADtalkModerator 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. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 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.[45][46]
Sprocket, UC Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" website as I already cited, defines micro and macro evolution.[47] 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.[48] 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. — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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)


To try and keep track of all the different points, reduce typing, and edit more easily, I'm just reorganizing the conversation into subtopics. All the different subjects going on are getting tough to keep track of. It will be easier for me to reply to each one if this is recategorized. My apologies about the delayed responses, it was just getting more difficult for me to follow the conversation and make sure I kept track of all the different subpoints/threads in the conversation. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Categorization of Life[edit]

Because evolution is not required to proceed at any particular pace. If a shark is ideally adapted to its environment, why should it change? — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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.[49] 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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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? — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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

Tanniyn Dinosaurs?[edit]

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.

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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 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.[50] 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 <livyathan> the piercing <bariyach> serpent <nachash>, even leviathan <livyathan> that crooked <`aqallathown> serpent <nachash>; and he shall slay <harag> the dragon <tanniyn> that is in the sea <yam>." 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.[51]) 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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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 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. ::--Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'm not "brushing aside the actual translation" but examining the original text of the Bible's Hebrew manuscripts, what is called the Interlinear, to provide context to the KJV translation. The KJV translators just went off ancient manuscripts when translating the Bible into English, and while it was a marvelous work for the time, it was not perfect since A) as a team of translators some translators would translate the same word differently then other translators, B) for such a huge work they just translated it as they went through and at times translated the same words or phrases in different ways, and C) they translated into a now-archaic form of Old English with words that can now carry different meaning then their modern equivalents.
Again, the Hebrew word tanniyn translated "whales" in Genesis 1 is almost always translated elsewhere by the KJV translators as "dragon", 21 times out of the 28 times it's used in the Old Testament.[52] This can be seen from ancient manuscripts dating before the time of Christ, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, or from the Masoretic Text (6th century A.D.). When it comes to disputed words like this, I believe in looking at how the word is used throughout the Bible consistently as seen from the oldest manuscripts. Full disclosure, I use a program called PowerBible CD to check the interlinear, that allows me to instantly see how a given Hebrew or Greek word is used throughout the Bible.
Ultimately, I believe the context of how the Hebrew word tanniyn is used throughout the Bible shows it refers to dinosaurs, and stand by that point. You disagree because of the firebreathing and virtual invulnerability, but we don't know that specific breeds of them could not breathe fire (the Bible does not say they all did, just a specific breed called Leviathan) and their consumption of vegetation and consequent methane production provides a feasible explanation for how it could have occurred as mentioned here.[53] Furthermore, many of them had considerably thick bones and scaled, armored exteriors that would have made them largely invulnerable to early weapons as described in Job 41 (which specifically mentions harpoons, swords, spears, darts, habergeons, arrows, and slingstones). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
...and, as I pointed out, you're throwing the cultural context out the window. The Israelites KNEW what Behemoth was: it was Shor Habar. Midrash is very clear on that point. What you're saying, essentially, is that they don't and didn't know what their own book meant. So much for reading the Bible "as the original authors intended it." --Phentari (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The Midrash is itself an interpretation of the text with no bearing on the original manuscripts. To my understanding it can be in particular a MUCH later translation. To my understanding the book of Job was one of the earliest books of the Bible written, sometime from 1,800-2,500 B.C. It's the only other book of the Bible besides Genesis authored during the age of the patriarchs, and geographic locations named in the book have been verified by archaeology as fitting with that time period.
The Midrash on the other hand dates at the earliest to what, 250 A.D.? Some parts are even written as late as 1250 A.D.[54] And specific manuscripts preserving it can date even later to the 16th century A.D. I'm unclear why you think the Midrash could be sure what the correct usage would be of a word used 3,000 years earlier and which had apparently fallen out of use. What is the specific Midrash citation, and when does it date to? Because otherwise, it could be a later interpretation attempting to distort the original text. Say for example a Dead Sea Scroll preserved the word behemowth dating back to 200 B.C., and 1,500 or even 2,000 years later a Jewish scribe interprets this as meaning an ox. Does that mean their interpretation is correct? Not necessarily. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
My point is, with the book of Job, you can easily be talking about a 3,000 or 4,000 year gap from when the Hebrew word translated behemoth was last used before falling out of use, and its later interpretation by a scribe in the Midrash. That's a huge time gap between when parts of the Midrash were written (1,250 A.D., maybe as late as 1,550 A.D.) and the book of Job (around 2,000 B.C.) so I'd want to know more specifics about the Midrash citation in particular and when it is dated to; who authored it and when so that I can be sure it's not a much later interpretation of a word which had long since fallen out of the Hebrew vocabulary. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
And you don't see a tiny (read "huge") double standard there? The people who wrote the book can't be expected to know what it means, and their collected traditions concerning interpretation are worthless because some of them weren't written down until two thousand years after the book was authored...but modern American Creationists can perfectly discern the meaning of those same passages FOUR thousand years later. I wonder: why are you and other Young Earth Creationists who fancy themselves "scholars of Hebrew" so much better qualified to interpret Hebrew than...well, actual Hebrew scholars? --Phentari (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, you haven't even shown where in the Midrash it claims Behemoth is Shor Habor. Do you have a source for the claim it's associated with Shor Habor in the Midrash?
Secondly, there is contemporary Midrash written in the 20th and 21st centuries. For all I know, you could be referring to a specific interpretation that someone wrote last month. I would like to see a source for where in the Midrash it's written that behemoth is Shor Habor so I can figure out where the passage came from. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not one Midrash; it's many, stretching back to the Book of Enoch. This article does a fairly good job of covering it.
The Feast of the Righteous, in Midrash tradition, will be a feast of Leviathan and Shor Habar. Numerous Midrash sources identify Shor Habar as Behemoth:

…in the World to Come, God will organize a feast for the righteous from Behemoth and Leviathan, and then there is will be no proper slaughter there. (Midrash Tanhuma)

Behemoth will charge at Leviathan with its horns and rip it, and Leviathan will hit Behemoth with its fins and and butcher it. And the sages say, that this slaughter will produce Kosher meat. (Midrash Leviticus Rabba)

 --Phentari (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Behemoths Brachiosaurs?[edit]

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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's debatable whether Job 40:23 says it drinks up the whole river or just a large portion of it while thinking it can drink the whole river, the exact phrase is "Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth." Either way, there's not much short of a brachiosaur that could be said to drink up a sizable portion of the Jordan River.
As for its feeding on vegetation, you disagree that it "ate grass like a cow" in reference to Job 41:15 saying "he eateth grass as an ox." However, if it eats grass at all, then it "ate grass like a cow [ox]". In other words, it doesn't have to be in reference to the entire digestion process of an ox, just to the similarity in regards to being an herbivore. You are reading it as "the behemoth digested grass in the exact same way an ox does" but it could be read as "the behemoth digested grass like an ox digests grass". Both are herbivores which digest grass, the process of digestion doesn't need to be exactly identical for God to make such a statement to Job.
The Bible doesn't say cedar branch or cedar switch, it simply says like a cedar. And a hippopatamus has a tail smaller than some cats and dogs, certainly not long enough to be confused with one of the tallest trees in the world. Which leaves an elephant perhaps, but it doesn't have a tail that could really be compared to a cedar either, though it would certainly be a better comparison than the hippopotamus. A brachiosaur specifically would fit the description, unlike an elephant or hippo. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You just proved my point perfectly. You insist that Job 40 is a literal description, but maybe the part about drawing up Jordan into his mouth was just figurative. Let's note, also, that a brachiosaur actually had an extremely small mouth, particularly relative to its size, and that a hippo's broad, gaping mouth would fit the image much better, if we're not being literal.
Moreover, the Bible also doesn't say cedar tree. The word used could mean any of the three, but inerrantists, as they so often do, say "It means what we say, because we say so." Even though the Bible never mentions the size of the tail, it MEANS it was huge, because inerrantists say so. Even though it says Behemoth had a navel, it doesn't MEAN he had a navel, because inerrantists say so. Even though it mentions that he can hide in the reeds by the riverbank--something that strains credulity to the breaking point for a brachiosaur--it doesn't really mean that, because inerrantists say so.
Again, you're dismissing the elements that don't fit your desired conclusion and emphasizing only the ones that do. It's a bit like someone trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle and breaking off pieces to make it fit, then insisting they've done an accurate job. --Phentari (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say behemoth drew Jordan into its mouth. It says behemoth "trusts that it can draw up Jordan into its mouth" which is slightly different wording. Behemoth could drink a lot, enough to think it could drink up the whole Jordan. Again, a hippo isn't nearly big enough to be compared to drinking up a large portion of the Jordan.
Neither is a Brachiosaurus big enough to be compared to drinking up a large portion of the Jordan. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Either it's figurative--in which case the wide, gaping mouth of a hippo could easily create such an image--or it's literal, in which case, neither a hippo nor a brachiosaurus could do so. Seriously, you're inventing arbitrary distinctions here to try to defend an indefensible act of reading far more into the text than is there. --Phentari (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That's like saying if one refers to an Oak that they aren't referring to an Oak Tree. There's no reason from the passage to assume it means anything but a tree. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"It's good oak." "Take a left on Oak." Am I referring to an oak tree? There's no reason from the passage to assume it means a tree--or that it's referring to size--and yet, Young Earth Creationists do just that. --Phentari (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't this "tail" line a euphemism made in the KJV to avoid being vulgar by saying "penis"? If so, it sounds like the typical speech of "look at my penis; I must be very fertile".-- (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The word can, indeed, mean that, and the word for "moves" can also mean "extends." There are numerous scholars who believe the passage refers to Behemoth's virility. --Phentari (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible that the Hebrew word zanab translated tail in Job 40:17 is explicitly used in such a context.[55] It's only used 11 times in the Bible, specifically these places, and none of them appear to show such a context.
Exodus 4:4 And the LORD hwhy <Y@hovah> said rma <'amar> unto Moses hvm <Mosheh>, Put forth xlv <shalach> thine hand dy <yad>, and take zxa <'achaz> it by the tail bnz <zanab>. And he put forth xlv <shalach> his hand dy <yad>, and caught qzx <chazaq> it, and it became a rod hjm <matteh> in his hand Pk <kaph>:
Deuteronomy 28:13 And the LORD hwhy <Y@hovah> shall make Ntn <nathan> thee the head var <ro'sh>, and not the tail bnz <zanab>; and thou shalt be above only lem <ma`al>, and thou shalt not be beneath hjm <mattah>; if that thou hearken emv <shama`> unto the commandments hwum <mitsvah> of the LORD hwhy <Y@hovah> thy God Myhla <'elohiym>, which I command hwu <tsavah> thee this day Mwy <yowm>, to observe rmv <shamar> and to do hse <`asah> them:
Deuteronomy 28:44 He shall lend hwl <lavah> to thee, and thou shalt not lend hwl <lavah> to him: he shall be the head var <ro'sh>, and thou shalt be the tail bnz <zanab>.
Judges 15:4 And Samson Nwvmv <Shimshown> went Kly <yalak> and caught dkl <lakad> three vwlv <shalowsh> hundred ham <me'ah> foxes lewv <shuw`al>, and took xql <laqach> firebrands dypl <lappiyd>, and turned hnp <panah> tail bnz <zanab> to tail bnz <zanab>, and put Mws <suwm> a dxa <'echad> firebrand dypl <lappiyd> in the midst Kwt <tavek> between two Mynv <sh@nayim> tails bnz <zanab>.
Job 40:17 He moveth Upx <chaphets> his tail bnz <zanab> like a cedar zra <'erez>: the sinews dyg <giyd> of his stones dxp <pachad> are wrapped together grs <sarag>.
Isaiah 7:4 And say rma <'amar> unto him, Take heed rmv <shamar>, and be quiet jqv <shaqat>; fear ary <yare'> not, neither be fainthearted Kkr <rakak> bbl <lebab> for the two Mynv <sh@nayim> tails bnz <zanab> of these smoking Nve <`ashen> firebrands dwa <'uwd>, for the fierce yrx <choriy> anger Pa <'aph> of Rezin Nyur <R@tsiyn> with Syria Mra <'Aram>, and of the son Nb <ben> of Remaliah whylmr <R@malyahuw>.
Isaiah 9:14 Therefore the LORD hwhy <Y@hovah> will cut off trk <karath> from Israel larsy <Yisra'el> head var <ro'sh> and tail bnz <zanab>, branch hpk <kippah> and rush Nwmga <'agmown>, in one dxa <'echad> day Mwy <yowm>.
Isaiah 9:15 The ancient Nqz <zaqen> and honourable Mynp <paniym> asn <nasa'>, he awh <huw'> is the head var <ro'sh>; and the prophet aybn <nabiy'> that teacheth hry <yarah> lies rqv <sheqer>, he is the tail bnz <zanab>.
Isaiah 19:15 Neither shall there be any work hsem <ma`aseh> for Egypt Myrum <Mitsrayim>, which the head var <ro'sh> or tail bnz <zanab>, branch hpk <kippah> or rush Nwmga <'agmown>, may do hse <`asah>.
While it's tough to discern a definite meaning from many of the verses, in Judges 15:4 it definitely appears to refer to a literal tail when used of animals. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
...which establishes that it CAN refer to a literal tail, not that it HAS to refer to a literal tail. "Zanab" (Strong's 2180) can mean tail, or end, or stump. Certainly, the context here, in conjunction with "stones"--ie, genitalia--suggests generative organs. --Phentari (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. However, behemoth was referred to as "chief of the ways of God" and would have been the most spectacular land animal at the time, enough to precede the leviathan of the next chapter which was some kind of dinosaur. I still don't think that a hippopotamus would qualify, an elephant perhaps but not a hippo. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
...and yet again, you're presenting your opinion as if it were the Word of God. Leviathan "was some kind of dinosaur?" Prove it, please. --Phentari (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The fossil record shows hundreds of different types of dinosaurs and the Bible mentions a couple of big beasts which are cherry-picked to match some particular feature. Why is there no mention of stegosaurs, or hadrosaurs, or velociraptors - surely ante-deluvian man also saw these beasts as well. Were all these not included in the ark? Creationism raises far more questions than it ever purports to answer. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 20:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Defining Taxonomy[edit]

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? — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

Again, the overall Classes are identified in Genesis 1, and I spelled out what they were over a year ago back in May 2012.[56][57] 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[58], yanshuwph - KJV great owl[59], and kowc - KJV little owl[60]) 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.

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

Why not? Simply disallowing half of the biological evidence based on your reading of the Bible is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs
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." — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. ::::--Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it's tu quoque, first of all, since it wasn't in regards to you personally but simply pointed out that your point applied to all taxonomy, not just Creationist taxonomy. Tu quoque is only a fallacy if targeting the opponent making the argument. Just pointing out the opponent's argument applies more broadly, like I did, is not a fallacy.
Ultimately, you can recognize my general point that taxonomy/cladistics in general is "holistic and open to interpretation" and that "'species' is entirely a man-made category assigned to a certain range of lifeforms." Ultimately, the categorization is entirely in the eye of the beholder. You claim general cladistics as opposed to its creationist counterpart is more "rigorous and scientific" but I would argue that is because general cladistics has considerably more funding, including federal subsidies. There is far more money backing the research of general cladistics as opposed to creationist cladistics, far more people involved, far more funding involved. If creationist cladistics are less exacting, that is simply because there are far fewer scientists participating in them.
I tend to think of kinds as generally being crocodiles, canines, felines, bears, etc. I think most lifeforms generally fall into these sorts of basic categories and we see microevolution within them, not between them, consistent with Creationism, not Evolution. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the clades were established fairly firmly a century ago. Huge amounts of research money had little to do with it...and, really, how many millions do creationist "researchers" need before they can come up with a testable definition of "baramin?" I have to press the point: it's Creationists who claim that they know for a fact that there are objective, clear-cut, pre-defined categories of life which can never be changed; it's up to Creationists to provide any evidence of this whatsoever, and that begins with showing us the categories. --Phentari (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I put together a list of what I see as the core kinds or baramin.[61] This is the general outline I am thinking of when I refer to created kinds. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reason For Examining Non-Plant Life[edit]

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!" — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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.[62] 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[63]) 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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, how would you test this? Even if I show you changes at the level of family, I suspect you'll just shrug and say, "Well, obviously that family wasn't a "kind." The "kind" is bigger than a family. Show me a change out of the "kind." But, of course, no matter what is shown, Creationists will again shrug and say "I guess that wasn't one of the Biblical "kinds." What could anyone POSSIBLY show that Creationists would be forced to accept as a "change in kind?" We've already established that a cabbage changing into a radish isn't enough, that a unicellular species changing into a multicellular species isn't enough, and that an animal species changing into a clearly different animal species with which it cannot reproduce isn't enough. I suspect that even if, by some miracle, we were able to show Creationists a cat turning into a dog, we'd again get, "Well, clearly, cats and dogs are part of the same Biblical class of life. The created kind must be "dats" or "cogs." Baraminology is a young science, so we're still working out the details." --Phentari (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I just created my own list to present the basic categories I'm referring to.[64] Baraminology is a relatively young science, only really around since the 1990s, although some great early scientists were creationist biologists like William Buckland (though Buckland is better known for his contributions to other sciences). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Mmmhmm. "It's a young science." I wonder: how many decades should we give them before we can expect them to come up with an actual, testable definition for "baramin?" Forty years? Fifty? A hundred? --Phentari (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well at any rate, I addressed your core concern that I don't have a solid definition of the kinds I'm referring to. I've defined them pretty well now I think, so hopefully I've addressed your point that a definition/framework of the kinds needs to be provided. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, actually, you really haven't. Saying that you think canines are a kind doesn't provide us with a useful or testable definition of kind. What "kind" was the Tasmanian wolf, pray tell? How do you determine which "kind" a species belongs to? You're "trying to decide" whether elephants are cattle or land animals--how do you "decide" other than "I think it's so?" The fact that you have "decided" that these are the basic baramins means nothing; if it was ever demonstrated that change could occur between these categories, you'd simply shrug and say "Guess I was wrong about that particular baramin!" --Phentari (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Defining Macroevolution[edit]

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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bible says in Genesis 1 that God created the core classes of life we see today, that they were told to bring forth after their "kinds". First the waters were told to bring forth small moving creatures and birds, then tanniyn (which you disagree refers to dinosaurs) and marine life. To my understanding, the Bible's claim that birds were made first, prior to land creatures, is at odds with the general theory of evolution. Rather than evolving from a common ancestor, the taxonomic classes are described in Genesis 1 as being brought forth separately. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Volcanism and Radiometric Decay[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: Phentari / talk / contribs

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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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... --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
...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! --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're referring to Megatherium, correct? Weren't they found in Central and South America, specifically? Not China, where the Pterasaurs were found? If so, the sloths might have been found in higher strata, but the pterasaurs were not literally found "below" them. I'm not familiar with the particulars, but if what I just described is correct, then it's perfectly explained by a flood.
Why would it be explained by a flood? Because the lava from a volcano would fossilize the pterasaurs, freezing them in place, as a lower layer. However, sloths farther from the volcano's location would not be fossilized by the immediate eruption, but by the flood's deposition, meaning the bodies could be deposited as a higher layer rather than solidified through lava as a lower layer.
Again, I'm not sure about the particulars of the pterasaurs and sloths you're describing, so maybe I'm missing something, in which case I'm sure you'll correct me. However, that would be the scenario which would explain it under a global flood if I'm understanding your argument correctly. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In other words, if there was a volcanic eruption on land briefly before the waters flooded everything as I previously described, you could have a lower fossilized layer below the flood deposited sediment and dead fossils. Thus explaining why pterasaurs in the region of said eruption (and again, the pterasaurs were found in one specific area of China where a supervolcano is known to have fossilized large areas) would be fossilized lower than sloths. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I was referring to sloths in general--ALL sloths, as well as all modern mammals of ANY kind. Not one of them has ever been found fossilized below a pterosaur. Not one. If we're to accept your explanation, we have to accept that all of the mammals in China somehow escaped your supervolcano. And then, of course, there are the numerous pterosaur fossils from Bavaria, which are even more problematic for your theory, since they're encased in limestone. Again: this leaves us dealing with a "volcano" that spews out calcium carbonate and somehow conveniently avoids hitting all of the modern mammals. More and more remarkable! --Phentari (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Again though, weren't the ancient sloths more typically found in the Americas, and the Pterosaurs in Asia? Were the sloths and Pterosaurs even living in the same region? If not, couldn't a specifically Asiatic volcano have given life in its region, like the Pterosaurs, more radiometric decay?
As for whether there were mammals around, there were very ancient mammals discovered in the same location as the pterosaurs which dated similarly old as well, see Juramaia for example. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
...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. --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So at this point, I put it to you plainly: you claim that "It appears" that all of the pterosaurs were buried by volcanoes. Do you, in fact, have a single piece of evidence for that claim? Can you show us numerous pterosaur fossils encased in tuff? In pumice? In basalt? In ANY kind of volcanic rock? Can you show us one? Is your conclusion based on evidence, or are you trying very hard to make the evidence fit your conclusion? --Phentari (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. "Chinese pterosaur and small dinosaur fossils were buried rapidly by volcanic ash and hence preserved whole, while those of western Europe were usually broken apart on floodplains, extensively scavenged, and eventually preserved in fragmentary form."[65] Again, the reason pterosaurs were found so well-preserved in the Asian region appears to be due to volcanism. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. SOME pterosaurs were buried by a volcano in ONE region. As I had already pointed out (and you have now acknowledged) there are many other pterosaur fossils in other areas that were not buried under the same circumstances...yet, in all those regions, and all those conditions, we never find ONE pterosaur fossil buried any higher than the Cretaceous. Why? --Phentari (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


...until you point out that flying pterosaurs are always found much deeper than sloths. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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.[66][67] 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."[68] We even recently discovered a well-preserved fossil forest in China.[69] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
...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!--Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, the well-preserved, ancient-dated pterosaurs found in China were due to volcanism.[70] However, in looking closer, I must reconsider my thinking that they were fossilized just in a specific region, as pterosaurs were apparently discovered in a range of locations.[71] Those dated oldest do appear to have been found mainly in Europe or Asia I notice.
I notice one explanation for the fossilization of a pterosaur mentioned is "The pregnant pterosaur was just trying to make it home in time to lay her egg. But when a sudden storm assaulted the 3-foot-long flying reptilian, the wind broke her wing, sending her spiraling down into a lake. As the mud sucked her under, the pressure expelled her egg, which fossilized beside her as the mud turned to rock."[72] Therefore, another possibility might be that many of the pterosaurs which are being dated older were specifically dying over watery areas, and died as a result of the initial flood winds/storm conditions. That could explain why they got fossilized lower and incurred increased decay from oceanic volcanism. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is a truly remarkable flood you posit. Somehow, purely by coincidence, EVERY pterosaur managed to die before the Flood killed ANY modern mammals--and they all managed to get buried at similar depths, whether by volcanoes or sudden winds which knocked them into the water just before the Flood! I ask again: what possible evidence could ANYONE show you that would make you say "I'm wrong, and there wasn't a global Flood?" --Phentari (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dolphins and Icthyosaurs[edit]

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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
Again, you're looking for ways to explain away the evidence. So now you're suggesting that all of the dolphins were at or near the surface, and none of the icthyosaurs were? Yet another truly remarkable coincidence! Of course, we have a small problem there, because we find more modern species of deep sea fishes fossilized in the same layers as the dolphins--not the icthyosaurs--and we find shallow-water species from the Cretaceous fossilized in the layers with the icthyosaurs, not the dolphins. --Phentari (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fossilized Footprints, Polystrate Fossils, etc.[edit]

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." --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
It's my understanding that fossilization today is very, very rare, because the kind of sinking down into bogs you refer to isn't rapid enough to prevent decay. A tree in particular would be so big that by the time the bog absorbed it, it would be well on its way to fully decaying, right? Also, if the trees just were fossilized gradually, then why as mentioned here (by a TalkOrigins author no less) are small reptiles so often found fossilized with the trees?[73]
I haven't looked into this before but I still don't understand why you're so convinced by this, why you think the tree couldn't have washed into place after a flood and set down roots then. Indeed roots partway up the trunk could be explained by the sediment settling around it from a flood so that it re-grew the roots, right? I'm not understanding why the presence of such roots is necessarily contradictive of a flood. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Because trees don't work that way. They don't miraculously regenerate their roots when uprooted by a flood and deposited in a new spot. Setting that aside, let's be clear here: you're not positing "a flood." You're positing THE Flood--a year-long event. Do you really mean to suggest that the trees took root after (or in the middle of) a year-long global inundation that covered the tops of the mountains? --Phentari (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Volcanic Islands[edit]

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!) --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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?
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.[74] --Phentari (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Coral Reefs[edit]

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. --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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.[75] 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. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, there are always disputes and explanations. It's just that when you look at them in the gestalt, the holes become very evident. If Creationists were just claiming that the Flood created volcanic islands, that would be one thing. If they were just claiming that the Flood eroded shallow-water shelves on those islands, that would be one thing. If they were just claiming that the Flood formed deceptively-large coral reefs, that would be one thing. But they trot out the Flood as the explanation for all of those...and suddenly, we're faced with the idea of a Flood that in one year created volcanic islands (while leaving no evidence at all of the eruptions,) eroded shallow water shelves, AND formed deceptively large coral reefs...while also carving out the Grand Canyon (somehow making multiple U-turns in the process,) accelerating radiometric decay (without producing any excess heat or radioactivity,) and let's not forget creating craters on the moon! I'm vaguely surprised that they haven't attributed the distant starlight problem to the Flood yet! --Phentari (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Too Much Radiation and Heat?[edit]

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." --Phentari (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Microevolutionary Rates[edit]

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". Shadow of Lords talk 21:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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.[76] I provided some well-sourced examples for evidence of this rapid microevolution which is forcing scientists to rethink their beliefs on microevolutionary rates today.[77] 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."[78]
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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)

Third question[edit]

Thank you for engaging here. I appreciate your honesty and clarity of thought. I have a very simple and direct question for you. Given that the conservative editing community that used to edit at Conservapedia has now split into two camps, why do you continue to edit at Conservapedia instead of Ameriwiki? Hclodge (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is the first I've heard of Ameriwiki, I wasn't aware there was a split although I knew Philip J. Rayment had some kind of wiki at AStoreHouseofKnowledge. I was frustrated enough with all the recent blocking that I stopped editing from September-August at Conservapedia, and only recently did some editing because of the unblock of someone blocked by TK. I thought momentarily that Conservapedia might be willing to address unfair blocks. I run my own wiki at, although it's not a public collaborative site, just my own personal project to put apologetics material on. I will keep an eye out for Ameriwiki though, thank you for the information! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a relatively favorable view of Andy and Conservative but I think the site's become too permissive of bad blocks. I liked Conservapedia's original goal to avoid ideological blocking, which is mentioned in the Conservapedia Commandments, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the direction it's taken. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Catholics and Christmas[edit]

Did you write somewhere (facebook I think) that Catholicism was created by Satan to destroy Christianity and that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated because it's pagan and anti-Christian? If you did, were you just trolling?ClothCoat (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My full analysis of the issue is on both facebook in note form and on my wiki.[79][80] I've debated Catholics extensively for years across the web and I do think Roman Catholicism is more similar to the Pharisees and Roman Empire who crucified Jesus than the original Christian Church seen in the book of Acts. I don't think any of its doctrines stand up to scrutiny having examined them in depth or at all Biblical.
My argument about Christmas was not a simple "it's pagan and anti-Christian" argument, it was that the book of Jeremiah says Christmas is a pagan holiday back in the Old Testament. Christmas Trees as seen in the book of Jeremiah, like Mass to Mary/the Queen of Heaven, were pagan idolatry and severely punished by God as such.
Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
I'm not sure I've even met anyone else who knows about these verses or that Christmas is condemned even back in the Old Testament. This is just a point I make from having read the Bible extensively for myself. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"I believe Catholicism was Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity." The fact you wrote that and don't think it's totally fucking nuts makes me lose hope in humanity. Also, every time you say they're not "real Christians" you are invoking No true Scotsman and come off like a member of the Know Nothing Party. ClothCoat (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware you're just here on an agenda to dishonestly distort my positions and paint them as crazy, despite my extensive sourcing and willingness to discuss them at length. You've made that very clear by this point.[81] I provided a detailed, well-reasoned, well-sourced argument for that claim by examining the history of early Catholicism/Christianity and Catholic doctrines in relation to the Bible, as anyone who bothers checking the links in question will see. You are claiming anyone who claims to be a Christian is whether they meet the Biblical definition of one or not; essentially that anyone who claims to be a Scotsman is one. If you think my arguments so ridiculous, why bother talking to me? Unless you're just trying to dishonestly misportray my arguments rather than engaging in serious debate about the issues. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, you raise a Strawman fallacy when you falsely equate my position with "they're not 'real Christians'" which is not at all what I said. My criticism was of Catholicism, not Catholics specifically. As I made perfectly clear in the article you criticize, I think some Catholics are indeed Christians but that the institution itself was always an evil perversion of the original Biblical Christianity, and designed to persecute rather than preserve it. I never said of Catholics that they aren't "real Christians", you made up those words out of thin air and are lying through your teeth. I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my bad for thinking you said Catholics aren't real Christians but when you explicitly say "This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians" and "I believe Catholicism was Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity" that seems like the logical end to your argument and is heavily implied. Now, answer the question, do you really think (and think hard about this) that Satan created Catholicism to destroy Christianity? If your arguments seem crazy maybe, just maybe, they're fucking crazy.ClothCoat (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, so you were actually quoting my words, just not in the right context - however, I do apologize for thinking you were making them up out of thin air; apparently you did have a reason for thinking that. I think Roman Catholicism was always an attempt by the Roman Empire to create a fake Christianity to preserve Roman paganism and better persecute real Christianity by removing its popular appeal. Before Constantine had his visions and the Council of Nicea declared what Christianity was, the Roman Empire was dedicated to persecuting Christianity.
Again though, the lede paragraph of everything I wrote actually started out by saying very clearly that I was NOT claiming all Catholics weren't Christians, but that I was criticizing the Catholic Church or institution specifically. My lede stated, "I have Catholic friends who I very much respect and admire who I'm convinced are Christians. I really do hate to offend them. Nevertheless, I am likewise convinced the institution of Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact one of the greatest institutions for evil and assault on Christianity ever introduced on Earth." I've met a number of Catholic individuals who I admire and could not doubt their Christianity, but I do not think Catholicism itself is Christian. I reaffirmed this at the end of my writing also, quoting Revelation 18:4-5 to show that some Christians are in the Catholic Church, saying "Christians are a part of it, and commanded to 'Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.' (18:4-5)"
And yes, I do think Roman Catholicism was designed to destroy Christianity. Again, the Roman Empire before Constantine was doing exactly that, and the continued persecution of heretics who by all measures were Christian, even after Constantine, in violation of Jesus' commandments to love one's enemies, shows that the Roman Empire/Catholicism did not substantially change its villainous nature simply by adopting Catholicism. That statement is in line with what Jesus Himself said, that Satan plants tares or fake Christians, as a way to sabotage God.
Matthew 13:24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Furthermore, Jesus specifically stated in verses 36-43 what the symbolism means:
Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
At any rate, Jesus clearly predicted that Satan would sow a false Christianity, and I argue that given Biblical analysis of Catholic doctrine and its clear relation to paganism, even paganism seen in the book of Jeremiah (which included both Christmas Trees and Mass to a 'Queen of Heaven'), Catholicism is the single most obvious of such a fake Christianity sown by Satan.
You seem to just assume that because I'm a socially conservative Biblical fundamentalist that my beliefs are inherently crazy and unsupported by reason; your biases and assumptions are dictating your opinions of everything I say. You assume it's crazy before ever considering it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if you could just define "Christian" and "Christianity"? It's just so that I can understand why "Catholicism" and some "Catholics" don't fit? Thanks. --Weirdstuff (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Have I got this right. Catholics are the tares created by the big bad and will end up cast into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Wow! Great stuff!. Oh, no, you say, not actual Tims, just the church, but without the Tims there's no church. Sounds like it's time to put on your orange sash and march on down to the Falls Road. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I generally try to go by the definitions used by Jesus and the New Testament. For example:
  • Loving others (John 13:35, 1 John 2:9-11, 4:20-21) as demonstrated by sacrifice (1 John 3:14-16) which fulfills the Law because it does not harm others. (Romans 13:10)
  • Producing good fruits of a changed life by doing the will of the Father in Heaven and following Jesus' teachings (Matthew 7:16-24). The fruit of God's Spirit is said to be love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. (James 3:17, Galatians 5:22) God is righteous and those who do righteousness are born by God. (1 John 2:29, 3:10)
  • Producing the good works which represent a changed inner life such as helping the poor (James 1:26-27, 2:14-26), though the works do not save, they indicate a changed spirit. (1 John 3:17-18, Ephesians 2:8-10)
  • Loving God and keeping God's commandments (1 John 2:4-6, 5:2-4) by doing the will of the Father in Heaven and following Jesus' commandments. (Matthew 7:21-27)
  • Affirming Jesus is the Messiah (1 John 2:22-23) who physically came in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3), that Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour of the world. (1 John 4:14-15, 5:5-13)
  • Having the Holy Spirit within who teaches us all the things of God. (1 John 2:27)
  • As a general rule, the poor are more likely to be heirs to the Kingdom of God, and it's extremely difficult for any rich person to become a Christian. (Luke 6:20, Matthew 19:23, James 2:5-7)
There may be more I am forgetting, but this is a basic outline of what I see as hallmarks of Biblical Christianity. At its simplest, I do not believe Catholicism is a Christian religion because it contradicts the teachings of Jesus repeatedly, and the early Catholic Church persecuted those who criticized it as a warfaring religion more similar to the Roman Empire's persecution of early Christians than the pacifistic church in the book of Acts. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
OK. Do you believe that most professing Christians are Christians by this definition?--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I think the fact that most people falsely claim to be Christians can be inferred by a comparison of these verses:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Jesus says in the same conversation that "many" will be false Christians, but "few" will find the path to life. Given that, I assume the majority of those who claim to be Christians aren't actually Christians. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"Majority" would be 70%, 80% - something like that? Or more?--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I define a majority as anything in excess of 50%. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, but "many" and "few" are not going to be "51%" and "49%". But if you'd rather be coy and don't want to give the number you feel Christ meant that's fine. Another thought that occurs to me is that in Europe Christians are not as common as in the US. Furthermore of that smaller demographic a vanishingly small percentage believe in biblical literalism. And of them some will be Catholics or other (apparently) non-christians. So would it be fair to say there are just about no Christians in Europe? --Weirdstuff (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably not, but I'd be risking extrapolation past 50%. It says many vs. few there which is enough to assume a majority over 50%, anything past that would just be hypothesizing on my part. I'm really not sure what it is or might be, I think given those verses it's above 50% and beyond that I'm just generally not sure. Christianity does appear to be much rarer in Europe, but I'm not that familiar with Europe, so I won't commit to guessing at specific percentages. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be 60%, it could be 70%, it could be 80% of Christians who are Christians in name only when they are really deceiving themselves. I have no way of knowing and haven't looked into it enough to really guess, all I know from the verses is that it clearly appears to be a majority and beyond that I haven't really bothered to figure out what the percentage might be exactly. I have no idea what it probably is, it's somewhere above 50% so far as I'm concerned and beyond that I'm not sure. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh sure, all the the other Christians are wrong, only you and your creationist chums know the true interpretation of a book written, translated, rewritten and compiled two millennia ago. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You know, Jzyehoshua, I've heard many, many Christians claim that most other Christians are "Christians in name only," or "false Christians" and "deceived." The really remarkable thing is that, no matter how wildly they disagree on everything else, all of these Christians have one thing in common: they take it as a given that THEY are the TRUE Christians who are NOT deceived. So my question to you is: how do you know that you're a true Christian, and that your understanding of God's Word is correct and superior to all of the countless millions of "deceived" Christians over the centuries? How do you know that you're not one of the misguided majority? --Phentari (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's addressed in 1 John 3:19-24, 1 John 4:2-3, 1 John 5:2, and Matthew 7:16-20. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. "Defining Microevolution." Understanding Evolution. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 15 April 2012 <>.
  2. "Macroevolution." Understanding Evolution. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 15 April 2012 <>.
  3. "What is macroevolution?" Understanding Evolution. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 15 April 2012 <>.

Honest question not meant to insult[edit]

Do you have Aspergers syndrome? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though I've wondered before if I have Savant Syndrome. I have some form of extreme memory for what I read similar to a photographic memory and retain the information unusually well years later, an ability that allows me to scan whole pages and instantly absorb key information. Why do you ask? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a "yes." Hipocrite 00:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I know I'm perhaps too impatient with the inability of others to execute reading comprehension and perhaps take my own abilities for granted at times, but the fact that you assumed I said "Yes" when my answer was essentially a "No" and managed to mis-read a basic paragraph does not speak well for you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I ask because you seem to be incapable of shutting your mouth, are imposing yourself on dozens and dozens of people around you, and frequently repeat yourself twice or more in a single post with these long-winded walls of text. You also basically make shit up as you go along. Do you not notice that you behave remarkably differently than nearly everyone else around you? That's why I ask. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh god. Savant syndrome. Your abilities aren't that prodigious. I do, however, accept the possibility that you're autistic. Your poor socialization is driving people on this site fucking nuts. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Gee, funny how I'm managing to "impose myself" on so many people when the only place I've been discussing recently is on my own user page. By the way, guess where you are? If you dislike me so much, enough to lie about not making this topic to insult me, why are you bothering to come on my user page at all? So on one hand you complain that my posts are too long, and on the other hand you complain that I actually repeat myself on occasion in those long posts? And on one hand you complain that I speak too much, and on the other hand you complain that it's my poor socialization skills which are bothering people? Seems like we need to have a talk about a possible schizophrenia diagnosis for you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Since you feel like airing your opinions about me, I will present mine about you. I don't think you'd have a problem with all of my discussion if I was making a fool of myself. I think ClothCoat and friends want to stereotype conservatives as fools, and would prefer those who represent their arguments with sourcing and logic be quiet. I don't think you mind my talking, you mind me talking while presenting conservative viewpoints in a positive manner. The blocks, the insults, the distortions of my points, the attempts to silence me - all show me a pattern of desperation by those who dislike conservative opinions being presented logically. Although I know you'll try to disagree with the statement that I am presenting them logically.
You've got a screw loose. I didn't intend to insult you by asking a sensitive question about something that's beyond your control that, nonetheless, has a tremendous amount of explanatory power. Ultimately, you're responsible for your own strange behavior. Let me address a few of your nonsense points. (a) Far from limiting your endless yammering to your own talk page, you initially came here to talk about Conservapedia. It was sneaky of you to put that "recently" in "the only place I've been discussing recently is on my own user page." And by sneaky, I mean dishonest. (b) You're continuing to make shit up as you go along. You compare extremes, dissimilar concepts, or opposite ways of addressing an issue with "on the one hand/on the other hand," not concepts that are entirely consonant, like the absurdly long posts, repetition, and verbosity, which are signs of poor socialization. What's so confusing about this that you really truly though you were making me look bad enough to suggest I'm schizophrenic? Did you honestly think that was a zinger? Seriously? That was rhetorical. I don't actually want to hear anything else from you. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just here to have a rational discussion, see what other's points are and challenge my own viewpoints. I am tired of dealing with these belittling, dishonest tactics by those who disagree. I have more respect for people when they think their opinions through and discuss the issues, even if I disagree with their arguments. I've had hundreds, maybe thousands of liberals use these same ad hominem and straw men debate tactics against me before. It gets frustrating experiencing the same tactics after a decade or so. Having come across this style so many times before, it's very obvious the kind of character assassination campaign certain posters here are seeking to run against me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL why are you dragging me into this, I thought you made anti-Catholic comments (which you basically did, even if you don't hate Catholics, read the Anti-Catholic page) and I said you aren't a centrist, that's it. And yeah, the guy who created the Category:Right of Reason for the purpose of adding sane conservatives who I admire think conservatives are fools. Hell, my username is a callout to Cloth coat Republicans who I admired as well. A lot of strawman going on here, though I'm not surprised you would do that after you tried to label my attempts on Doma's talk page to point out that many white supremacists are Christian nationalists was the same as me saying Christians are white supremacists even though I went out of my way to point out that Christian nationalists aren't necessarily even personally Christian. Your psychological projection is showing through. ClothCoat (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reorganization of the page...[edit]

...removed a whole bunch of material, which is not really allowed. Please archive all old discussions -- don't just delete them. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I removed any of the replies, the deleted material consisted just of quoting previous posts. I'll archive and then put the reorganized section in place of the archived sections, however. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, you have directly credited me with arguments I did not make. For example, much of what seems to have actually be written by Phentari has been given signs as if I wrote them. This is not acceptable. Shadow of Lords talk 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you identify which specific comments were incorrectly attributed to you? Or alternately just change them to the correct attribution. I thought I only attributed to you the remarks from your original post which began much of the conversation on these subjects. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh, I see what happened. Phentari didn't sign his post so I mixed up some of his comments as yours, not seeing that he'd signed it. I'll fix that right now, sorry about that. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I was expecting the long signature line which in that area doesn't occur because it was unsigned by Phentari and someone just put in a short unsigned tag. As a result I mixed up what he wrote as having been written by you, my mistake. It should be fixed now, right? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Close. However, I did not write anything in the Defining Taxonomy section. It appears everything but that one attribution is in order, however. Shadow of Lords talk 02:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that was Phentari's also, my mistake. If you see anything else feel free to fix it or just let me know. It should be fixed now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't do it in the future Jzyehoshua; it has too much potential to screw up the record of conversation. Tielec01 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not like I ordinarily go around reorganizing conversations, if this one hadn't gotten unbelievably complex and gigantic, I wouldn't have considered it. It got to be where it was discussing so many points that just thinking of trying to address them all was getting to be a headache. At least this way now I can address and keep track of individual points. The conversation had become a mess of diverse points on numerous topics and I had to split it up to keep track of everything going on in it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That's what happens with a Gish Gallop. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 07:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you just interpret disagreement on complex topics as a Gish Gallop. :) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)