How to Save Children from Creationism

How to Save Children from Creationism July 19, 2018

Editor’s Note: Ever since visiting the Grand Canyon, I wondered how creationists explained the numerous signs there that describe an ancient earth. You will understand after reading this. You’ll also understand what we need to do to stop poisoning young minds with creationists’ regressive beliefs.  We welcome this second postby an almost Clergy Project member, who dodged the bullet by dropping out of seminary to attend law school. / Linda LaScola, Editor

====================

By Luke Douglas
I was a new atheist, still closeted, at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter with my fundamentalist family.  I was trying not to crack.

It wasn’t my first visit, granted, but my experiences as a convinced young-earth creationist at 15 and then as a self-taught science enthusiast at 23 could not have been more different. When I was 15, Ken Ham’s Creation Museum was a beacon of truth to the world that had rejected the Word of God for Darwin.  When I was 23, it was a pseudo-scientific propaganda mill that drove the invisible wedge ever deeper between my family and me. I did everything in my power to play the role a little longer, because as much as I would have liked to come out, my wedding was on the line.

Yes, my wedding. I’m from the west coast and my wife is from the east coast. I was working in Colorado, and I accepted the offer to save the price of a plane ticket and to ride with my family on their way to the wedding in the bride’s hometown.  The only catch was we would stop at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter en route through Kentucky.

This isn’t to say there was some explicit quid pro quo, but the stakes for being outed were unthinkably high. The best conceivable outcome would be a falling out that overshadowed the wedding. More likely, they would have boycotted the wedding entirely. Not being ready for all that, I kept quiet.

Since that visit to the Creation Museum, I’ve come out to my family and made the cultural and ideological 180-turn in every way I could. The devastation to family has been palpable in a way that my fellow nonbelievers who were never religious or who left more moderate versions of Christianity can hardly imagine.

I want to help people understand some of the tactics that go into creationist education because I believe my years of experience on both sides of its message give me insight that, although not unique among anti-creationism activists, can nonetheless add significantly to the dialogue.

I was homeschooled in deep-blue Oregon and can remember three creationist organizations there that existed to promote creation “science.” We attended events where speakers debated the semantics of Genesis 1 and which precise version of a literal interpretation should be foundational to our understanding of the universe. We went fossil hunting and heard all about how the fossilized clams we discovered were made in the 24th Century B.C. We took the creationist alternative guidebooks on our family vacations to Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon so we could learn about these sites from the “Flood Geology” interpretation that cemented these natural wonders in our minds as proof of God’s maniacal obsession with human adherence to His commands.

As an active culture warrior to whom creationist dogma was a necessary cornerstone in my social and political views, the polarization of the movement was exhilarating. The compromises and ambiguity of the Intelligent Design argument were waning in the movement. Organizations like the Discovery Institute that had convinced some creationists that an incremental approach would lead the way to gradual acceptance had been devastated by the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in 2005. The defeat of Intelligent Design in the courts was just enough of a loss to enrage the millions of fundamentalist Americans who wanted to see their creationist views validated by the education system while discrediting the argument that leaving Christ and biblical literalism out of the message would help us win court cases. This was the time to take decisive action.

I was in law school and active with a far-right legal advocate for religion in the public sphere. When Ken Ham came to speak at the school of law, I introduced him.

When he debated Bill Nye, I hosted a debate watch party for our creation activists to watch and root for him. As a true believer, I was devastated when he lost the debate in a spectacular show of persuasive incompetence. Although I walked away from that night simply wishing my position had been represented by a better communicator, it was the turning point in my deeply internalized doubts about the anti-scientific worldview that was the foundation of my entire identity. It was the milestone in my journey between the two Lukes who visited the Creation Museum.

Creationist dogma is most effective in the form of a gradual inoculation against critical thought. Start with young children and present the creationist message as fact without reference to any opposing viewpoint. As they reach late elementary or middle school, introduce straw man references to evolution and deep geological time but refute them summarily with creationist arguments that are more sophisticated than the straw men. As the students reach high school, flush out the evolutionist position with clips from an angry anti-theist or an elitist with a British accent

and refute them with a creationist counterpoint that is more sympathetic than the version of evolution to which the student has been exposed.

In the end, creationist education will work and will be passed on to the next generation as long as the student is prepared with “answers” to the contrary views that appear more sophisticated than references to evolution and deep time that children encounter in daily life. A child growing up with a thorough creationist education is not likely to be phased by a TV science documentary or by reading signs at national parks because their version of the story appears more comprehensive than their perception of the opposing view.

It’s up to us to push scientific literacy in to a higher level where this strategy becomes impossible.  In my case, even by marginally raising my scientific literacy, the creationist dogma fell apart under its own weight.

I want to encourage my fellow secular activists to remember that engagement is not futile. While tens of millions of dedicated fundamentalists are closed off from changing their views, their children are within reach.  We need to work with those children first at an education level. Then, we need to provide the support network that untangles the social and political web that is inseparable from the forces that drove the creationist movement to entrap children in the first place.

==================

Bio: Luke Douglas is a political consultant, progressive activist, writer and rabble-rouser. Since leaving fundamentalism and a political career for the religious right, he has been outspoken about his journey to secular humanism. Catch him reading history, science, or philosophy, or on Twitter @Propter__Hoc.

>>>>Photo Credits: By John Foxe – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21731329  By Dsdugan – Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60046356 ; By David Shankbone – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11639311

"I've heard of some people experiencing pain after some quack treatment and being told, "That's ..."

How to Quack-Proof Yourself Against Pseudoscience
""Toxins" is signal for bad. I saw a billboard the other day advertising cosmetics that ..."

How to Quack-Proof Yourself Against Pseudoscience
"Second to the ongoing Trump Origination scams are likely Natural & the Organic labeling food ..."

How to Quack-Proof Yourself Against Pseudoscience
"I think I would add 'making a fuss about how 'natural' the product is' as ..."

How to Quack-Proof Yourself Against Pseudoscience

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian Curtis

    The fact that creationists have to fight so hard against exposure to knowledge, to remain constantly on guard against any creeping bit of truth that might breach their defenses and corrupt them… should tell us something. It’s true that you don’t HAVE to be ignorant to be a creationist, but it’s not a drawback either. And in anything worthwhile, it really should be.

    • Luke Douglas

      It’s funny because on a recent trip, my dad asked me very soberly if I’m an “Oort Cloud believer,” and my stomach sank because I knew saying yes would add tension to my family relationships. Answers in Genesis has built talking points around denying the existence of the Oort Cloud, and my family dynamic is strained as a result… Because I think a cloud of icy objects float beyond the orbit of Pluto. So talk about knowledge being a threat.

      • mason

        Holy crap! What’s next, “Are you a Mars or a Jupiter believer, Luke?” Get Dad a copy of Carl Sagan’s “Comet” for his birthday. 🙂

      • Linda_LaScola

        Maybe your Dad would like me, because I never heard of the “Oort Cloud” until now.

        • WARREN

          There is actually not a smidgen of evidence that the Oort Cloud even exits. It was proposed by someone named Oort in order to try to explain why comets, which are short-lived phenomena, still exist in a solar system billions of years old.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            There is actually not a smidgen of evidence that the Oort Cloud even exits.

            NASA: Oort Cloud

            NASA’s WISE spacecraft, scanning the entire sky at infrared wavelengths, delivered new insights about these distant wanderers. Scientists found that there are about seven times more long-period comets measuring at least 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) across than had been predicted previously. They also found that long-period comets are on average up to twice as large as “Jupiter family comets,” whose orbits are shaped by Jupiter’s gravity and have periods of less than 20 years.

            That sounds to me like more than “a smidgen of evidence.” Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

          • WARREN

            Even Wikipedia says the Oort Cloud is merely theoretical.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Even Wikipedia” – what is your point, since I linked to NASA, not Wikipedia? You have done nothing to refute the ‘smidgen of evidence’ provided in the link.

            Two of the secrets to maintaining a creationist stance must be tunnel vision and a short memory span.

          • WARREN

            Wikipedia is a secular site, so you can’t blame religious believers for that comment. And NASA, after talking about the Oort Cloud as if is real, finally admits, “the Oort Cloud is BELIEVED to be a giant spherical shell. (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/oort-cloud/overview/)

          • ThaneOfDrones

            What about the actual evidence they discuss? Namely the WISE results?
            Pointing at the thing you want to agree with and ignoring everything else is doing it wrong.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            5 days gone by, and WARREN has no inclination to discuss the actual evidence mentioned in the NASA article. This is a pattern with him, whereby he chooses to ignore any evidence that he cannot warp to fit his own pre-drawn conclusions.

          • Sol III

            Of for christ’s sake….’Believed’ is referring to speculation about the clouds overall generalshape, not it’s existence. And since the cumulative effects of the gravitation forces from the sun and and other planets would naturally pull objects into spherical shapes,* it’s purposed shape is based on sound principles, even if no definitive evidence exists….yet. But we always find the evidence. Always.

            *For the non-science minded, gravity causes large enough objects to form into spheres, given enough time, because it exerts equal force at all points, hence spheres.

          • WARREN

            Seeing a photo of the Oort Cloud would be nice rather than just drawings.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Seeing photos of Jesus would be nice, rather than just artists’ drawings (depicting him as a blue-eyed white European, or riding a dinosaur)

          • Sol III

            Argument from Incredulity?

            Apparently for all your so called science education, you don’t understand that 1) the objects in the cloud can only reflect light from the sun, not produce it, and are therefore faint to our current technology (but gives us time).
            2) the object in the cloud are quite small and
            3) the objects in the cloud are quite far apart, maybe even as far apart as the orbit of a planet.
            4) and therefore, it is highly unlikely will ever have ‘a’ photo of the cloud. At best, we will have multiple photos that can be stitched together as a mosaic or panorama.

            But we already know you won’t accept that evidence, either.

      • ElizabetB.

        Why is the Oort Cloud contrary to young earth? (Thanks very much for the analysis in your post)

        • Brian Curtis

          The AiG argument is that comets are too volatile and fragile to exist for billions of years at the range where Earth observers can detect them, so they must have been recently created. The fact that comets spend most of their time at a great distance from the Sun means that an old Earth is possible… which must never be conceded. It’s kind of like a resident at a nursing home looking at all the elderly patients and deciding that babies don’t exist.

          • ElizabetB.

            I don’t quite see how that follows…. but be that as it may, on exploring a bit, looks like another issue young earthers have with Oort is that “believers in Oort” are believing in something no one has ever seen or measured while refusing to believe the “answers in Genesis” —

            “How ironic. Something which we have no evidence for—except the imagination of evolutionary scientists who are desperate to defend their unfounded beliefs—is treated as fact because it’s ‘natural.’ Meanwhile, the eternal being who preceded nature and brought it into existence is not considered a fact because he is not ‘natural.’ Whom should we believe?”
            https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/oort-cloud-no-evidence-required/

            Thanks, Brian!

      • Tangentially related to that, I’ve always wondered why the supposed word of an omniscient deity does not mention galaxies at all, or being a bit (just that) closer to what was known 3000 years ago the Milky Way being formed of countless stars and those wandering bright stars being worlds themselves with stuff as showing phases like the Moon, several moons, or a ring.

        The sad part, just like some idiotic preachers I know of say there’s no (intelligent?) life elsewhere in the Universe because the Bible says so or that it’s far more believable the Sun turned off during six seconds after Jesus’ death than evolution of the Big Bang, there’ll be Fundies out there that say all those are lies of the Devil because they’re not mentioned in the Bible.

  • Thank you for sharing!

  • anxionnat

    Teaching creationism can have devastating real-world effects. My ex’s sister and her kids lived in a small town in the West. She didn’t know that, when her older daughter reached high school, creationism was being taught in biology classes. Her daughter had wanted to be a doctor since she was small. I remember that she asked for a “doctor” kit at age 3 or 4. Unfortunately, the colleges she applied to, in the same state, knew about the creationism in the classroom in her high school, so she didn’t get any credits for high school biology, which made her ineligible for the pre-med program at her college. She did go on to get a professional degree, but not to become the doctor she had dreamed of being and worked for, for years. How many other bright students will be scarred for life, unable to follow their dreams, while they are indoctrinated with pseudo-scientific garbage, when they don’t know they can complain? (I should add that teaching creationism was explicitly illegal in this state, but the so-called biology teacher did it anyway.)

    • Kevin K

      This is exactly the sort of thing that the Freedom From Religion Foundation handles. I’m guessing this “biology” teacher is long gone; but if not, there are avenues parents can explore.

      • anxionnat

        This was back in the early 1980s, so the teacher is probably long gone. I’m a member of FFRF, so I know about their good work. If it had happened recently I’d report it, or tell the young woman’s mother she should report it.

        • mason

          my Baptist brother in law, a Bob Jones University graduate taught 4th grade science after he finally after taking additional courses to get Indiana to get a teaching certificate. (The BJU degree wasn’t considered adequate in science, though now with the Pence era it probably is) Against policy he kept trying to teach the nonsense creationism and nearly got fired several times, and then took an early retirement.

    • Luke Douglas

      It’s a real tragedy. There’s a bit of a Twitter community around the #Exvangelical hashtag and specifically #Christianaltfacts that you might find interesting. There are a lot of insights into the thought control methods that rely on false information to prop up abusive community power structures. If there is one underlying theme that makes sense of fundamentalism, it’s an obsessive need for control. If you can prevent people from pursuing elite careers outside the community, you can keep your children and grandchildren dependent on the community for life.

      • Brian Curtis

        The number of potentially world-changing geniuses we’ve lost to religious indoctrination is infuriating. Humanity needs all the brilliant minds it can get, and religious figures are busily breaking all the brains they can get ahold of. It’s slow-motion terrorism.

    • mason

      “How many other bright students will be scarred for life, unable to follow their dreams, while they are indoctrinated with pseudo-scientific garbage, when they don’t know they can complain?” Many millions … I remember how my interest in becoming a surgeon got the squash put on it by all the Baptist fundamentalist anti-science, evolution, rational thinking-questioning propaganda I was subjected to. Trying to believe the salvation from hell blood atonement and magic tale stuff while compartmentalizing rational critical thinking in my young brain wasn’t something I was able to do or even would have understood.

      • anxionnat

        This makes me so fucking angry. Imagine you can see steam pouring out of my ears! The only saving grace is the next generation, when fewer kids will be suppressed by this– I hope.

      • Brian Curtis

        “The great tragedy of religious teaching is not just that it gives wrong answers; it’s that it discourages asking questions at all. Religion instruction takes a child’s naturally curious, questioning, knowledge-hungry mind… and switches it off. That’s not just a shame, it’s an atrocity. And it must be fought.”

    • Paul Price

      Seems the problem is the discrimination against alternative worldviews, not the student or teacher. Darwinism is not science.

  • MadScientist1023

    Interesting post, Luke. I’m curious as to what scientific subjects or facts actually chipped away at your creationism. Whenever I’ve tried engaging with creationists and introducing scientific facts to them, it never gets anywhere. They either ignore it or have absolutely no idea what it means.

    • Luke Douglas

      To be honest, it didn’t start with science. It started at a more philosophical level where I had to come to grips first with learning how the scientific method works and why it is capable of yielding valid knowledge.

      If you are interested in dialogues with young earthers, consider using history. My secondary education focused heavily on history and the liberal arts, which is common in fundamentalist education, so many of my early doubts drew upon that rather than evolution. If people are convinced the Grand Canyon was formed in 2,304 B.C., show them reasons why the pyramids are older than that. Show them hard evidence and written records that multiple human civilizations predate their flood. For my part, I had the intellectual tools to explore these questions first, which inspired me to learn more about the scientific tools needed for the geological or biological perspectives. Creationist propaganda regarding the ancient world exists, but it is less developed and less emphasized than their pseudo-science IMO.

      • Paul Price

        Luke, I am sorry you have taken this course. If you did not understand the scientific method as a creationist then you could not possibly have understood creation science properly, either. Creation science is where science began– all the founders of modern science were so-called “creationists” (they did not need that term back then), and the scientific method is the cornerstone of creation science. It is in fact Darwinism’s inability to conform to the scientific method that makes it pseudo-scientific.

        Secular history is performed by secular historians, who all have their own biases and entrenched paradigms. You put yourself forth as someone who was a “real creationist” and truly understood the best arguments from creation science; but honestly that does not remotely appear true from where I sit. If your faith was unseated by Ken Ham’s poor performance then I am afraid you were putting your faith in the wrong things to begin with. Unfortunately the well has now been so poisoned in your mind that it seems it will be no easy task to get you to reconsider, and that’s a major shame. You can email me at paul@creation.com if you have serious questions about creation science you’d like addressed. I’d be happy to have an honest and civil conversation.

        • Lark62

          Wow. There is no evidence for creationism. Just quote mining and quibbling over random facts.

          The Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence and is every bit as sound at Atomic Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and the Theory of Gravity.

          While scientists continue to learn and expand their knowledge, the Theory of Evolution as a whole accounts for all the evidence and not contradicted by any evidence. When you have an alternative theory that accounts for all of the evidence, and is consistent with related scientific theories such as Germ Theory and Plate Tectonics, bring it on. And be prepared to accept your Nobel Prize. Until then, all you have is quibbling about a few random and trivial data points while ignoring the millions of other pieces of data.

          It is comparable to a person arguing that pizza cannot exist because tomatoes and pineapple are not native to Italy, while ignoring the hundreds of pizza restaurants found in every city, the millions of pizzas purchased and made every year, and the fact that the speaker has probably eaten pizza. And just as dishonest. They are quibbling over a couple of random facts (the origin of tomatoes) while ignoring the big picture and all other evidence. The evidence for evolution is every bit as strong as the evidence for pizza, and claims that evolution is not true are just as weird as claims that pizza does not exist.

          • Paul Price

            Such blatant, brainwashed propaganda coming from the evolutionists. Not even a hint of actual understanding of just how poor the evidence for Darwinism really is, and how strong the evidence for supernatural design… willful ignorance. Sigh.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Other than a general “bah humbug” there is nothing specific in your outburst to refute. Take a nap.

          • Lark62

            I challenge you to read Why Evolution is True by Coyne. If you’ve got the guts.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Evidence? You’re certainly not presenting any. Since you fail to meet even your own standards, you should stop posting.

          • Such blatant, brainwashed propaganda coming from the creationists. Not even a hint of actual understanding of just how poor the evidence for the Biblical account of creation really is, and how strong the lack of evidence for supernatural design… willful ignorance. Sigh.

            FTFY.

          • Sol III

            roflmao!

        • ThaneOfDrones

          … and the scientific method is the cornerstone of creation science.

          That is not true, and it is dishonest to say so. The cornerstone of creation science is The Bible, and creation science is about twisting evidence until it fits in with the Bible, and ignoring the pieces that can’t be twisted sufficiently.

          Meanwhile, the Bible is a book filled with scientific errors, historical errors, moral errors and contradictions. There is no valid reason to grant it such deference.

        • Sol III

          Paul, you are right about one thing, ‘creation science is where science began–all the founders of modern science were so called creationists’.

          Originally, the church funded some scientific inquiries to discover the nature of God. Unfortunately for them, all they found was Nature. And in all the centuries since then, just more Nature. Creationism had it’s chance in the sun, it could have turned out to be the Truth. But modern scientific inquiry and the vast, immense bodies of evidence it has yielded (so much it would boggle your mind) has only reinforced the position that we live in a natural world created by natural forces acting on their natural properties. No magic needed.

    • WARREN

      Funny, I get the same reaction when I discuss serious scientific questions with evolutionists. They either resort to the most disgusting sarcasm or send me to resources that don’t really answer the questions. Earlier in this discussion I asked five questions — still waiting for logical answers. So here are five more: 1. Why should we believe dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago when more and more dinosaur fossils are being found with proteins, soft tissue and red blood cells intact? 2. Why should we believe life somehow evolved on Earth (or any other planet) if intelligent scientists after decades of trying still haven’t created life in the laboratory? 3. Why did Gould and Eldredge invent the Punctuated Equilibrium theory to explain why there are so few transitional fossils if there are indeed lots of transitional fossils, which there should be? 4. Why do scientists believe in an Oort Cloud when there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence it actually exists? 5. Why do mainstream scientists doubt there is design in nature when, in fact, there is a whole field called biomimicry which involves humans inventing things after borrowing ideas they find in nature (such as Velcro)?

      • MadScientist1023

        1. We don’t. We have found a few instances of extracellular matrices and hardy protein structures that previous models of fossilization thought couldn’t be found. The models were wrong, however it’s flat out wrong to call those intact cells.
        2. You want to know why science hasn’t done in a couple decades something that took nature hundreds of millions of year?
        3. I’ve yet to meet a creationist who says this who actually understands what a transitional fossil is.
        4. This has nothing to do with biology. It’s astrophysics, much of which is theoretical and treated as such.
        5. This one’s a complete strawman. You equate the process of mutation being undirected with the belief that all of nature has no design. That’s a false equivalency.

        Now your turn.
        1. If you’re a creationist, how do you explain the pyramids and the written records left by the Egyptians predating the supposed Flood?
        2. If you’re an intelligent designer, what’s one testable hypothesis your best pseudoscientists have come up with to support their claims?
        3. What do you think a transitional fossil looks like?

        • WARREN

          Hello Mad Scientist,

          1. When Mary Schweitzer first announced her discovery of soft tissue and red blood cells in dinosaur fossils, other secular scientists scoffed at her, saying she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing because these things can’t last for millions of years. Now, her discoveries can’t be denied, and at least some evolutionists seem to be flippantly saying, “Now we know red blood cells and soft tissue can last for 65 million years.” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/)
          2. But using their intelligence, scientists can try to recreate what they think the Earth was like 4.5 billion years ago, and unlike nature, they can get almost immediate results for their experiments.
          3. Gould and Eldredge seemed to know what a transitional fossil was, and they noticed the extreme number of gaps in the fossil record. What’s so hard to understand about that?
          4. Whatever branch of science the Oort Cloud falls into, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it actually existed.
          5. What do you mean? Are you agreeing that there is design in nature?

          My turn:
          1. The history of Egypt has been extended to be far longer than warranted. The dynasties were not always back-to-back but often overlapped or possibly didn’t even exist (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/). What is noteworthy is that ancient people were not brutes, creating structures so grand we still haven’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Put a large number of trained workers including automobile designers into a factory and see if they can produce nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together to get you from place to place. Next, blow up an automobile factory (just kidding) and see if the explosion will get you nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can agree with Wikipedia’s definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” The problem with the relatively few alleged transitional fossils is that they are snapshots rather than moving pictures. By that I mean because they are snapshots we can’t see what came before, if anything, or what came afterwards. A fossil “moving picture” would include a series of fossils showing the gradual evolution from one kind of creature to another, but these movies don’t exist. Was Archaeopteryx really a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds or was it simply a bird with some reptilian features, like hoatzin chicks today? We can’t tell from the snapshot.

          Because you seem to like to answer my questions, here are five more:
          1. How could the original male and female of any species have evolved at exactly the same time in order to be able to propagate their species? Given the large number of male-female species, this would appear to be a serious problem for evolution theory.
          2. Why do some population studies show that if the first humans appeared on Earth one million years ago, and, assuming a very slow growth rate, that we should nevertheless be seeing a human population today of 10 to the 43rd power (that’s one with 43 zeros after it)? (https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people)
          3. Why do some scientists believe Mars, a desert planet, once experienced a global flood (https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/03/09/global-flood-on-mars-where-did-the-water-go/) while denying that Earth, about 70% covered by oceans to an average depth of more than 2 miles, ever experienced a global flood?
          4. If modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, why does the oldest written document (the Kish tablet, according to some scientists) date back only to 3500 BC or so?
          5. Why are mutations considered essential to evolution despite the fact almost all mutations that can make a difference are harmful?

        • WARREN

          Hello Mad Scientist, I had previously addressed your comments and they were published but now have been mysteriously deleted. So if these new comments get deleted I will become very suspicious.
          1. I seem to recall that Mary Schweitzer was vigorously attacked by other secular scientists who maintained she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing. After all, everyone knows soft tissue and red blood cells can’t survive for 65 million years. Now that the evidence can no longer be denied, some secularists are flippantly saying, “Well, now we know soft tissue and red blood cells can survive for 65 million years.” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/)
          2. But intelligent scientists can almost instantly recreate millions and billions of years in their minds, run experiments, and get quick results, unlike nature.
          3. Gould and Eldredge knew what transitional fossils should look like, and they seemed to figure they would have so save the evolution theory by proposing a new theory which could explain these fossils’ scarcity.
          4. Whatever field you want to put the Oort Cloud in, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it really exists.
          5. So, what are you saying? Do you believe there is design in nature?
          My turn:
          1. Some historians have erred by extending the history of Egypt beyond what is warranted. They assumed each dynasty followed a previous one back to back when, in fact, it appears dynasties often overlapped or maybe didn’t exist at all. (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/). The main lesson here is that ancient people were not brutes but could build amazing structures for which we can’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Hire a large number of trained workers along with automobile designers and see if they can build nice-looking vehicles with parts all working together to get you from place to place. Next, allow a tornado to strike an automobile factory and see if it results in nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can accept the Wikipedia definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” As I explained elsewhere, so-called transitional fossils are snapshots and don’t show us what came before, if anything, or what came after. Fossil moving pictures, which might show us a series of fossils illustrating a gradual change from one kind of organism to another, don’t exist.

        • WARREN

          Hello Mad Scientist, I had previously addressed your comments and they were published but now have been mysteriously deleted. So if these new comments get deleted I will become very suspicious.
          1. I seem to recall that Mary Schweitzer was vigorously attacked by other secular scientists who maintained she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing. After all, everyone knows soft tissue and red blood cells can’t survive for 65 million years. Now that the evidence can no longer be denied, some secularists are flippantly saying, “Well, now we know soft tissue and red blood cells can survive for 65 million years.” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/)
          2. But intelligent scientists can almost instantly recreate millions and billions of years in their minds, run experiments, and get quick results, unlike nature.
          3. Gould and Eldredge knew what transitional fossils should look like, and they seemed to figure they would have so save the evolution theory by proposing a new theory which could explain these fossils’ scarcity.
          4. Whatever field you want to put the Oort Cloud in, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it really exists.
          5. So, what are you saying? Do you believe there is design in nature?
          My turn:
          1. Some historians have erred by extending the history of Egypt beyond what is warranted. They assumed each dynasty followed a previous one back to back when, in fact, it appears dynasties often overlapped or maybe didn’t exist at all. (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/). The main lesson here is that ancient people were not brutes but could build amazing structures for which we can’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Hire a large number of trained workers along with automobile designers and see if they can build nice-looking vehicles with parts all work together to get you from place to place. Next, allow a tornado to strike an automobile factory and see if it results in nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can accept the Wikipedia definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” As I explained elsewhere, so-called transitional fossils are snapshots and don’t show us what came before, if anything, or what came after. Fossil moving pictures, which might show us a series of fossils illustrating a gradual change from one kind of organism to another, don’t exist

        • WARREN

          Hello Mad Scientist, I had previously addressed your comments and they were published but now have been mysteriously deleted. So if these new comments get deleted I will become very suspicious.
          1. I seem to recall that Mary Schweitzer was vigorously attacked by other secular scientists who maintained she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing. After all, everyone knows soft tissue and red blood cells can’t survive for 65 million years. Now that the evidence can no longer be denied, some secularists are flippantly saying, “Well, now we know soft tissue and red blood cells can survive for 65 million years.” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/)
          2. But intelligent scientists can almost instantly recreate millions and billions of years in their minds, run experiments, and get quick results, unlike nature.
          3. Gould and Eldredge knew what transistional fossils should look like, and they seemed to figure they would have so save the evolution theory by proposing a new theory which could explain these fossils’ scarcity.
          4. Whatever field you want to put the Oort Cloud in, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it really exists.
          5. So, what are you saying? Do you believe there is design in nature?
          My turn:
          1. Some historians have erred by extending the history of Egypt beyond what is warranted. They assumed each dynasty followed a previous one back to back when, in fact, it appears dynasties often overlapped or maybe didn’t exist at all. (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/). The main lesson here is that ancient people were not brutes but could build amazing structures for which we can’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Hire a large number of trained workers along with automobile designers and see if they can build nice-looking vehicles with parts all work together to get you from place to place. Next, allow a tornado to strike an automobile factory and see if it results in nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can accept the Wikipedia definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” As I explained elsewhere, so-called transitional fossils are snapshots and don’t show us what came before, if anything, or what came after. Fossil moving pictures, which might show us a series of fossils illustrating a gradual change from one kind of organism to another, don’t exist.

        • WARREN

          Hello Mad Scientist, I had previously addressed your comments and they were published but now have been mysteriously deleted. So if these new comments get deleted I will become very suspicious.
          1. I seem to recall that Mary Schweitzer was vigorously attacked by other secular scientists who maintained she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing. After all, everyone knows soft tissue and red blood cells can’t survive for 65 million years. Now that the evidence can no longer be denied, some secularists are flippantly saying, “Well, now we know soft tissue and red blood cells can survive for 65 million years.” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/)
          2. But intelligent scientists can almost instantly recreate millions and billions of years in their minds, run experiments, and get quick results, unlike nature.
          3. Gould and Eldredge knew what transistional fossils should look like, and they seemed to figure they would have so save the evolution theory by proposing a new theory which could explain these fossils’ scarcity.
          4. Whatever field you want to put the Oort Cloud in, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it really exists.
          5. So, what are you saying? Do you believe there is design in nature?
          My turn:
          1. Some historians have erred by extending the history of Egypt beyond what is warranted. They assumed each dynasty followed a previous one back to back when, in fact, it appears dynasties often overlapped or maybe didn’t exist at all. (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/). The main lesson here is that ancient people were not brutes but could build amazing structures for which we can’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Hire a large number of trained workers along with automobile designers and see if they can build nice-looking vehicles with parts all working together to get you from place to place. Next, allow a tornado to strike an automobile factory and see if it results in nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can accept the Wikipedia definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” As I explained elsewhere, so-called transitional fossils are snapshots and don’t show us what came before, if anything, or what came after. Fossil moving pictures, which might show us a series of fossils illustrating a gradual change from one kind of organism to another, don’t exist.

        • WARREN

          DO NOT DELETE AGAIN!
          Hello Mad Scientist, I had previously addressed your comments and they were published but now have been mysteriously deleted. So if these new comments get deleted I will become very suspicious.
          1. I seem to recall that Mary Schweitzer was vigorously attacked by other secular scientists who maintained she wasn’t seeing what she thought she was seeing. After all, everyone knows soft tissue and red blood cells can’t survive for 65 million years. Now that the evidence can no longer be denied, some secularists are flippantly saying, “Well, now we know soft tissue and red blood cells can survive for 65 million years.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
          2. But intelligent scientists can almost instantly recreate millions and billions of years in their minds, run experiments, and get quick results, unlike nature.
          3. Gould and Eldredge knew what transitional fossils should look like, and they seemed to figure they would have so save the evolution theory by proposing a new theory which could explain these fossils’ scarcity.
          4. Whatever field you want to put the Oort Cloud in, it shouldn’t be discussed as if it really exists.
          5. So, what are you saying? Do you believe there is design in nature?
          My turn:
          1. Some historians have erred by extending the history of Egypt beyond what is warranted. They assumed each dynasty followed a previous one back to back when, in fact, it appears dynasties often overlapped or maybe didn’t exist at all. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt/ . The main lesson here is that ancient people were not brutes but could build amazing structures for which we can’t figure out today how they did it.
          2. Hire a large number of trained workers along with automobile designers and see if they can build nice-looking vehicles with parts all working together to get you from place to place. Next, allow a tornado to strike an automobile factory and see if it results in nice-looking vehicles whose parts all work together. The first is design. The second isn’t.
          3. I can accept the Wikipedia definition: “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.” As I explained elsewhere, so-called transitional fossils are snapshots and don’t show us what came before, if anything, or what came after. Fossil moving pictures, which might show us a series of fossils illustrating a gradual change from one kind of organism to another, don’t exist.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Now that the evidence can no longer be denied reproduced

            Oh, the things you are persistently skeptical about! But when an experiment gives the result you want to hear, it is undeniable.

            ‘I don’t care what they say about me’: Paleontologist stares down critics in her hunt for dinosaur proteins

            By Robert F. Service
            Sep. 13, 2017 , 10:30 AM
            doi:10.1126/science.aap9404

            Schweitzer’s discoveries, if confirmed, may amount to glimpses of dinosaurs in the flesh.
            But no one except Schweitzer and her collaborators has been able to replicate their work. Although the study of ancient proteins, or paleoproteomics, is taking off, with provocative new results announced every few weeks, most findings come from samples thousands or hundreds of thousands of years old—orders of magnitude younger than Schweitzer’s dinosaurs.
            “I want them to be right,” says Matthew Collins, a leading paleoproteomics researcher at the University of York in the United Kingdom. “It’s great work. I just can’t replicate it.”
            Others are harsher, and suggest that Schweitzer’s protein pieces come from bacteria or contaminants. “It’s problematic that no other lab has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer’s work,” says Jakob Vinther, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, who’s tried to do so. “The idiom that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence remains,” adds Michael Buckley, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester, also in the United Kingdom…

          • WARREN

            1. Please note regarding the article about Mary Schweitzer http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt : a. she is now an evolutionist who shouldn’t be expected to question the timeline of evolution without good cause, b. she still is able to publish in reputable science publications, c. laboratories, not Schweitzer’s, confirmed the presence of collagen and proteins in some of the dinosaur fossils, d. she has her defenders along with detractors:
            –Matthew Collins, a leading paleontologist, about Schweitzer and colleagues: “I want them to be right. It’s great work. I just can’t replicate it.”
            –Encrico Cappellini: “The methodology and procedures … all were done at state-of-the-art levels.” The evidence of protein sequences looks real, he said. “The implications are big.”
            –Johan Lindgren, a paleontologist: “I don’t get it. It seems like there is a double standard,” with some researchers ignoring Schweitzer’s multiple lines of evidence while making their own bold claims with less backing. “She’s extremely careful not to overstate what she’s doing.”
            2. Are you aware that researchers not named Schweitzer have found soft tissue in a “195 million-year-old” dinosaur fossil in China? https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.html
            3. Are you aware that scientists have found liquid ink in a “155 million-year-old” squid fossil, ink that was used to draw a picture? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1207367/The-150million-year-old-squid-fossil-perfectly-preserved-scientists-make-ink-ink-sac.html

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Again we see a pattern: you selectively quote whomever agrees with you, and ignore everything you don’t agree with. And the stuff you choose to quote!

            “I want them to be right.” This is exactly how not to do science. Reality doesn’t give a fig whether you want it to be true or not.

          • WARREN

            And you selectively quote! But my quotes give a more accurate picture of the intent of the article than your selective quotes.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            But my quotes give a more accurate picture of the intent of the article than your selective quotes.

            Cattle effluence. Your original claim was that Scheitzer’s work was: “Now that the evidence can no longer be denied“. The gist of the article is that yes indeed, there are researchers who will deny the evidence unless it can be reproduced by others.

            Stop lying.

          • MadScientist1023

            Don’t know what’s going on with your posts or why they get deleted.
            1. Your link doesn’t say what you think it does. You just looked at the picture and assumed it meant there was a viable cell underneath. There wasn’t. It was a husk of a cell that retained a circular shape. A few of the hardiest proteins of the extracellular matrix were preserved, but the scientist who discovered it did not call them cells, and hates how creationists have been misrepresenting her work.
            2. Oh, honey. You’ve clearly never done bench research. It’s not about time, it’s a matter of the number of trials nature had. Nature had trillions upon trillions of trials to get it right. We aren’t sure which specific experiment got it right. We don’t know whether it was in a hydrothermal vent, a geothermal pool, a pond, a tidal pool, or even in some droplet floating in the atmosphere. We don’t know the exact ribozyme sequences the first proto-cell had, or the exact mix of fatty acids, or any number of other specifics that would be needed to easily produce it in the lab. Realistically, you’d be talking about a project the size of the original Human Genome project, except that it won’t produce anything of unique value. It wouldn’t make something useful for the greater scientific endeavor the way sequencing the human genome did. But hey, if you have a billion dollars lying around and would like to fund the project for a couple decades, sign me up.
            3. Like I said, you don’t know what a transitional fossil it. It you did, you’d know that they are commonplace. Give me just about any two species, and I can direct you to a transitional fossil showing an evolutionary intermediate. I’ll start you off. The dinosaur to bird transition is shown by archaeopteryx.
            4. OK. I care nothing about Oort clouds. You, other creationists, and a handful of astrophysicists are probably the only ones who care. And I doubt the astrophysicists talk about it like it’s certain it exists.
            5. Natural selection results in the formation of complex structures. Some may use poetic license and say that things are “designed” by nature as a form of shorthand, but it’s always with the understanding that there was no intelligence behind the design.
            Your other answers are just plain weird. The pyramids were built with stone and slave labor. They also predate Noah’s flood, contain written records, and have no account of this alleged event happening. How do you explain that? That little machine shop analogy isn’t science. I asked for an actual experiment. What do creationists or IDers predict about the natural world that can be verified through experimentation? Try again.
            And of course, as we’ve established, you don’t understand the fossil record that well, because there are plenty of transitional species.

          • MadScientist1023

            Don’t know what’s going on, but my post apparently got deleted as well. If it gets flagged again, I’ll test the hypothesis that the size of the post is flagging it.
            1. Your link doesn’t say what you think it does. You just looked at the picture and assumed it meant there was a viable cell underneath. There wasn’t. It was a husk of a cell that retained a circular shape. A few of the hardiest proteins of the extracellular matrix were preserved, but the scientist who discovered it did not call them cells, and hates how creationists have been misrepresenting her work.
            2. Oh, honey. You’ve clearly never done bench research. It’s not about time, it’s a matter of the number of trials nature had. Nature had trillions upon trillions of trials to get it right. We aren’t sure which specific experiment got it right. We don’t know whether it was in a hydrothermal vent, a geothermal pool, a pond, a tidal pool, or even in some droplet floating in the atmosphere. We don’t know the exact ribozyme sequences the first proto-cell had, or the exact mix of fatty acids, or any number of other specifics that would be needed to easily produce it in the lab. Realistically, you’d be talking about a project the size of the original Human Genome project, except that it won’t produce anything of unique value. It wouldn’t make something useful for the greater scientific endeavor the way sequencing the human genome did. But hey, if you have a billion dollars lying around and would like to fund the project for a couple decades, sign me up.
            3. Like I said, you don’t know what a transitional fossil it. It you did, you’d know that they are commonplace. Give me just about any two species, and I can direct you to a transitional fossil showing an evolutionary intermediate. I’ll start you off. The dinosaur to bird transition is shown by archaeopteryx.
            4. OK. I care nothing about Oort clouds. You, other creationists, and a handful of astrophysicists are probably the only ones who care. And I doubt the astrophysicists talk about it like it’s certain it exists.
            5. Natural selection results in the formation of complex structures. Some may use poetic license and say that things are “designed” by nature as a form of shorthand, but it’s always with the understanding that there was no intelligence behind the design.
            Your other answers are just plain weird. The pyramids were built with stone and slave labor. They also predate Noah’s flood, contain written records, and have no account of this alleged event happening. How do you explain that? That little machine shop analogy isn’t science. I asked for an actual experiment. What do creationists or IDers predict about the natural world that can be verified through experimentation? Try again.
            And of course, as we’ve established, you don’t understand the fossil record that well, because there are plenty of transitional species.

          • MadScientist1023

            It’s not just you. My responses keep getting flagged as spam and deleted as well. I could probably break it down and respond to the individual points in separate comments, but I doubt you’d listen to them even if I did.

          • 4. Could you explain why the context of the OT is so local?. There’re no mentions of places or people outside the Middle East, not to mention China, Japan, or the Americas.

      • ThaneOfDrones

        So here are five more

        You should work on the quality of your questions, rather than quantity.

        3. Why did Gould and Eldredge invent the Punctuated Equilibrium theory to explain why there are so few transitional fossils if there are indeed lots of transitional fossils, which there should be?

        For a response to this, I will turn to Phillip E. Johnson, intelligent design creationist and author of Darwin on Trial, ISBN 0-89526-535-4, footnote on page 52:

        Terms like “rapidly” in this connection refer to geological time, and readers should bear in mind that 100,000 years is a brief period to a geologist. The punctuationists’ emphatic repudiation of “gradualism” is confusing, and tends to give the impression they are advocting saltationism. What they seem to mean is that the evolutionary change occurs over many generations by Darwin’s step-by-step method, but in a relatively brief period of geological time.

        What an important point. I wonder why Johnson buried it in a footnote…

        Meanwhile, if Creationism is true, the number of “transition fossils” should be approximately… zero. Since it clearly is not zero, why does WARREN continue to look for holes in evolutionary theory but not in creationism?

        For some good examples of transition fossil series, see the Prothero book mentioned in a separate comment.

        • WARREN

          Gould and Eldredge were attacked by fellow paleontologists when they first proposed their Punctuated Equilibrium theory (should more accuratedly be called Punctuated Equilibria theory) for giving ammunition to the enemy–creationists. I am old enough to remember that. They were famed paleotologists who should know a missing link when they saw one or the absence of missing links when they noticed the extreme number of gaps in the fossil record. Gould wrote, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Natural History 86:22 (1977)). As I previously wrote in this discussion (comments which mysteriously seem to have disappeared), alleged transitional fossils are snapshots rather than motion pictures. By that I mean as snapshots we can’t see what came before, if anything, and what came later. A fossil motion picture would show us a series of fossils displaying the gradual change from one kind of organism to another, but these movies are missing. So, was Archaeopteryx a link between dinosaurs and birds or just a bird with some reptilian features, like today’s hoatzin chicks? We can’t tell from its snapshot

          I ask so many questions in order to show how weak I think the evidence for evolution really is. So bear with me as I present five more (hopefully they won’t get deleted too):
          1. How does evolution explain the origin of sex, seeing as how the original male and original female of any species would have to evolve at nearly the same time, have the proper equipment, find each other, mate and thereby propogate the species before it immediately goes extinct? Consider the large number of male/female species where this would have to happen.
          2. If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, how could it have occurred without the laws of physics already being in place?
          3. Why are we noticing so many extinctions of species but so few claimed new species evolving?
          4. Do you agree with Dr. John Sanford, former Cornell professor and inventor of the gene gun, that the human genome is deteriorating rather than evolving due to the increasing number of mini-mutations, as one generation passes on its genes to the next? (https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028)
          5. Why shouldn’t creationists be allowed to point to the vast number of cultures which have a global flood tradition in their folklore (more than 200 cultures according to one count) as evidence that the stories likely are based on a real event, the details of which were passed down from generation to generation? (http://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-every-culture-have-tradition-globa)

          Thanks for being so polite.

        • WARREN

          Thane, I ask so many questions in order to show why I am no longer an evolutionist. So bear with me as I present five more:
          1. How does evolution explain the origin of sex, seeing as how the original male and original female of any species would have to evolve at nearly the same time, find each other, mate and thereby propagate the species before it immediately goes extinct? Consider the large number of male/female species where this would have to happen.
          2. If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, how could it have occurred without the laws of physics already being in place?
          3. Why are we noticing so many extinctions of species but so few claimed new species evolving?
          4. Do you agree with Dr. John Sanford, former Cornell professor and inventor of the gene gun, that the human genome is deteriorating rather than evolving due to the accumulating mutations in our genes? (https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028)
          5. Why shouldn’t creationists be allowed to point to the vast number of cultures which have a global flood tradition in their folklore (more than 200 cultures according to one count) as evidence that the stories likely are based on a real event, the details of which were passed down from generation to generation? (http://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-every-culture-have-tradition-globa)

          Thank you for being so polite.
          Warren

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Thane, I ask so many questions in order to show why I am no longer an evolutionist.

            All your questions show is that you ignore and misinterpret any evidence you don’t like. Most of your questions are actually not difficult for a scientifically literate person to answer and do not show any conflicts in current scientific theory.

            1. How does evolution explain the origin of sex, seeing as how the original male and original female of any species would have to evolve at nearly the same time, find each other, mate and thereby propagate the
            species before it immediately goes extinct? Consider the large number of male/female species where this would have to happen.

            a) The role of sex in evolution is poorly understood. This is not the same as saying “God did it.”

            b) Your question includes assumptions which are not necessarily correct. For example, you seem to be assuming that sex developed in large animal species. Consider instead that sex is known in microorganisms, and the bit about male and female having to come into being at the same time does not apply in that case.

            c) For another example, you don’t seem to understand how new species arise from existing species. You don’t need a new female dog and a new male dog to be zapped into existence at the same time, you need a population of wolves to separate from other populations, and change over time. The same for humans and chimpanzees: they arose from a common ancestor species, but then populations separated and evolved separately. The human population has not fallen below several thousand since that time.

            d) How does creationism explain the origin of sex? If God created sex separately in various ‘kinds’ then why do they all seem to be related? Why can lions and tigers still interbreed? Why can camels and llamas still interbreed (with technical assistance)?

            2. If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, how could it have occurred without the laws of physics already being in place?

            a) Was the Big Bang “the beginning of everything”? Or was it the just beginning of our current universe? There is considerable speculation over what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. Once again “we don’t know” is not the same as “God did it.”
            b) Are the ‘laws of physics’ actual laws that exist in their own, or are they properties of matter? If the latter, does it even make sense to suggest they already existed before matter?

            3. Why are we noticing so many extinctions of species but so few claimed new species evolving?

            What is the point of the question? Does it cast a cloud on any aspect of current scientific theory? Is there some rule that extinctions and speciation have to happen at the same rate?
            Extinctions are fairly easy to notice. You have a population which is considered to constitute a separate species, and people notice that it has died out.

            Speciation is not always easy to notice. For example, are dogs and wolves the same species? They can interbreed. Are horses and donkeys the same species? They can interbreed, but usually the offspring are sterile. But sometimes not.

            4. Do you agree with Dr. John Sanford, former Cornell professor and inventor of the gene gun, that the human genome is deteriorating rather than evolving due to the accumulating mutations in our genes? (https://www.amazon.com/Gene

            No.

            a) I have read Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. I have placed a review of it on Amazon (under a different name) which points out numerous of the mistakes he made in the book. Here I will just ask, since Sanford claims some background in genetics and plant breeding, why does he keep appealing to Information Theory to make his arguments? He is not an expert in Information Theory.

            b) Sanford has proven himself to be dishonest. He held a creationist meeting on Cornell University property (which pretty much anyone with rent money can do) and tried to pass it off as being officially sponsored by Cornell University. Since Creationists hate actual science so much, why do they wish to appear to have a stamp of approval from science?

            5. Why shouldn’t creationists be allowed to point to the vast number of cultures which have a global flood tradition in their folklore (more than 200 cultures according to one count) as evidence that the stories likely are based on a real event, the details of which were passed down from generation to generation? (http://www.icr.org/article/

            You go right ahead and point that out. I will point out some things on my own, and ask some questions.

            a) Weren’t all those other cultures, some of which (allegedly, according to actual science) pre-date the Noachic flood, wiped out by that event? After all, the story you are trying to pawn off on us says only 8 people survived.

            b) Feel free to point out the flood stories of other cultures from which the Jews stole their own flood myth. Makes it so much more believable as a real historic event.

            c) Most human populations have settled near water (coasts, river valleys). They are indeed familiar with flooding on a local and regional scale. So what? Geologists have been convinced that there was never a global flood since before Darwin published his theory.

            d) Does this make it any more believable that penguins, kangaroos and polar bears made their way to the Middle east ~4000 years ago, and then somehow made it back to their own territory afterwards? The number of scientific arguments against a global flood and a box full of animals is quite large and convincing.

          • WARREN

            a. Now you’re dealing in generalities. You can do better than that.
            1. I am glad you said the evolution of sex is poorly understood. As for how creationists explain how new species can arise, male and female, within kinds, that is a good question and I will have to research that.
            2. You answered my question with other questions.
            3. This question shows that evolution, if it exists, must be a very weak force today because it is being overwhelmed by extinctions.
            4. Almost all of those who reviewed Dr. Sanford’s book would strongly disagree with you.
            5. The timeline to which you refer has not and cannot be proven, just as in the case of the history of Egypt where dynasties were not always back to back but often overlapped. Remember we are talking about a global flood, not local floods, and I am not aware of any similar collection of legends regarding the world burning up in fire or destroyed by a monsoon. As for population studies, eight people 4,500 years ago could produce today’s population very nicely. However, if the first humans evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, and, even given a very low population growth, the world human population today would be astronomical. (https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people).

          • ThaneOfDrones

            You can do better than that.

            I would like to think that you can do better than you are doing, but I have no evidence for it.

            4. Almost all of those who reviewed Dr. Sanford’s book would strongly disagree with you.

            So what? Is truth decided by majority vote? How many of those reviewers have a Ph.D. in biology?

            5. The timeline to which you refer has not and cannot be proven…

            Neither can anything in your book of talking animals which claims that rabbits chew their cud and day and night can be divided before the creation of the sun. Have you no shame?

            As for population studies, eight people 4,500 years ago could produce today’s population very nicely. However, if the first humans evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, and, even given a very low population growth, the world human population today would be astronomical.

            a) You could explain the sheer numbers, but not the genetics nor the geographical distribution. And you would have some serious serious problems with inbreeding. Remember, we’ve got the DNA. BTW, why did God never mention DNA in the Bible? Was he too busy telling people to commit genocide, and that bats are a type of fowl?

            b) You’d have to explain how that astronomical population came about before the introduction of vaccines, antibiotics and basic hygiene. Besides we’ve got the DNA and we know it didn’t happen that way.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            BTW, Sanford was an atheist when he invented the gene gun.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            … seeing as how the original male and original female of any species would have to evolve at nearly the same time

            You should educate yourself about what really happens in nature.
            How a Tiny Critter Has Seven (Yes, Seven) Sexes

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes
            John Whitfield (2004)https://doi.org/10/1371/journal.pbio.0020183

            In fact, different species have evolved a bewildering number of ways to
            mix and match the attributes of sexes. Some do not have males and
            females, but have adaptations that mean each individual performs a
            specific role during sex. There are other species of which every member
            is sexually equivalent, but individuals nevertheless divide into groups
            for the purposes of mating. And in some species, individuals make both
            eggs and sperm…
            In a recently discovered hybrid system within the harvester ant genus Pogonomyrmex, queens must mate with two types of males to produce both reproductive individuals and workers (Figure 3).
            These ants are the first species known which truly has more than two
            sexes—with colonies effectively having three parents— argues Joel Parker
            of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

          • ThaneOfDrones
  • This was back in the 1980s but my Christian school’s Bob Jones University biology textbooks didn’t give us even an overview of what evolution actually meant. It focused on adaptive traits as not being “evolution” and on how spontaneous generation wasn’t possible. It focused on how carbon dating methods are wracked with contamination in the methods, grossly skewing results. It said dinosaurs died in the flood, that the climate changed after the flood so they couldn’t survive, that fossils were made due to the flood, and the world was 6-10 thousand years old. They said humanoid fossils were extinct primate species, not precursors to humans.

    At secular university I stayed away from biology courses (a shame as I loved biology) because i feared failing and was embarrassed as hell about the YEC schooling. Science denial is incredibly damaging to children.

    Thank you for sharing. It is hard to believe that in 2018 with all our advances in science and technology that people still teach and believe this garbage.

    • Luke Douglas

      My friends and I were taught every one of those things in the early 2000’s. As I’ve surveyed newer editions of the textbooks I used, I don’t see any positive changes, and actually see a few negative ones. For example, Baraminology has entered the accepted creationist mainstream as an alternative to taxonomy since I took Apologia biology. Anecdotally, I hear that more of my homeschool acquaintances have embraced Geocentrism than before. Isolated reactionism may actually be taking this community backwards, as hard as that is to conceptualize.

      • I had to look up baraminology as I had never heard of it – I left evangelical Christianity in the early 90s. Geocentrism? Oh no. I have heard of a few turning to belief in flat earth. If they aren’t denying science, they are using God of the gaps….

        • Luke Douglas

          For anyone who doesn’t want to google it, Baraminology is an alternate system of biological classifications that attempts to group living things by “created kinds” rather than by any system accepted by modern science. Geocentrism is necessary to flat earth thinking but not sufficient for it, if that distinction makes sense. All flat earthers are geocentrists but not vice versa. I don’t know many flat earthers, and it’s difficult at this point to know how many flat earthers are actually just online trolls, but if there is going to be an organized flat earth movement, it’s almost certainly going to come from creationists, most likely creationists in the Hebrew Roots school of fundamentalist Christianity.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Baraminology – I have heard of that. It came up around 2004 with the
            Wikipedia: Sternberg peer review controversy

            The driving conflict behind baraminology is that Creationists must believe in evolution in order to explain how one boat-load of critters could have expanded into the multitude of species observed today. If one group of “cats” could later evolve into house cats, wild cats, jaguars, lions, tigers, leopards, lynx, etc. then maybe you could actually fit everything into the ark. But it’s clearly a trade-off, because the more compression you do that way, the more you have to believe in hyper-fast evolution to expand into the modern panoply.

    • Lark62

      I too didn’t take much science in college, but now love geology and biology. Far too late to do anything about it as a career. But a few years back I took 3 free courses from the University of Alberta on Coursera. (Coursera has started charging for some classes, but these are still free.) There are new sessions starting mid August. Happy biology-ing.

      https://www.coursera.org/ualberta

      Paleontology: Early Vertebrate Evolution
      Paleontology: Ancient Marine Reptiles
      Paleontology: Theropod Dinosaurs and the Origin of Birds

      All three are good, but Ancient Marine Reptiles brought out my inner geek big time.

      • ElizabetB.

        Coursera is great!! My favorites so far are Duke’s terrorism and Boston U’s Bacevich.

      • ElizabetB.

        Memory jog!
        The Bacevich course was edX, not Coursera…. apologies!
        What fantastic opportunities online!!!!!!!

        • Lark62

          I haven’t done either coursera or edx in a while. Coursera is annoying because you now have to dodge fee only courses (mostly computer science), but it is still good. It always surprised me which course turned out to be interesting.

  • Linda_LaScola

    Again, I’m feeling lucky to have been taught real science in public school and never having science mentioned in (Catholic) church.

    It also helped that my mother frequently referred to the Scopes “monkey” trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial in such a way that indicated that the whole idea that humans were not related to apes was utterly ridiculous.

  • Lilly Munster

    Creationist are quite simply the most deluded, most ignorant people on this planet. I don’t want them to change. I don’t want to try to change their minds. You CAN’T make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

    • mason

      The good news is that’s thanks to Google many of the kids the creationists breed are discovering the Bible creation story is pure mythical Hebrew bullshit and are become rational secular humans.

  • See Noevo

    Editor’s Note: Ever since visiting the Grand Canyon, I wondered how creationists explained the numerous signs there
    that describe an ancient earth.

    Imagine a phenomenal Little Luke.
    A youngster so amazing that swarms of scientists studied and explained all the details of all his
    groundbreaking accomplishments.
    People would even come from all over the world just to see the sensational six year-old.

    But then the puzzle of his precociousness goes poof, when
    another swarm of scientists tells the tourists that the lil’ Luke they’re looking at is actually a seventy year-old man.

    Then the swarms of scientists squabble over whose Luke story is true.

    And the swindled sight-seers move on,
    many humming a tune…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qssWO8NSq0

    ………….

    https://geology.com/articles/age-of-the-grand-canyon.shtml

    • ThaneOfDrones

      Are you trying to make some point, or are you just on a psychedelic excursion?

    • ThaneOfDrones

      But then the puzzle of his precociousness goes poof…

      Still more believable than the story about the creator of the universe getting a Jewish teenager pregnant, so she could give birth to Him and He could grow up to be sacrificed by Himself to relieve all of mankind of imaginary sin, unless they fail to believe such a silly story.

  • mason

    Thanks for your story Luke. I was also raised under the gross stupidity of creationism. With Google today, kids with some critical thinking skill can quickly see that the ancient Hebrew creation story is a crock of myth, and that’s a good thing.

    The Grand Canyon is allowing a “creationist geologist” (a top ten oxymoron) to gather rock in the canyon to prove the Bible account of planet Earth’s creation is accurate and the Grand Canyon was formed after Noah’s flood. That our courts even entertain irrational “faith” nonsense when it comes to a science discussion (false equivalency) is indicative of how warped the US mentality is. Our courts would likely allow “information” about Allah’s flying horse Al-Buraq to be admitted as evidence in a equine linage trial. The madness continues. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/grand-canyon-creationist/532554/

  • WARREN

    I have gone the opposite direction as Mr. Douglas, from a college student indoctrinated in and accepting of Darwinism (at a Christian university, no less) to one who finds actual scientific evidence for the theory of evolution to be woefully lacking. If mutations and natural selection are constantly in play, why do we find so many examples of living fossils, species today which haven’t changed and look just like their ancestors millions of years ago? Seeing as it is so difficult for nature to create a fossil (check Wikipedia), why are there billions of fossils around (an easy task for a catastrophic global flood)? If the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of geology, why is there no evidence of erosion between the various strata? Why are missing links the rule instead of the exception? Why have Oxford scientists just recently admitted that it appears evolution hasn’t created any other intelligent species in the whole wide cosmos–we are alone?

    • mason

      Warren, My my,… trolling with creationist nonsense “questions”. Based on your questions, I’m suspicious you’ve also moved to disbelief in the theory/law of gravity and may have joined the flat Earth believers. You have disproved the ol’ adage, “There are no stupid questions.” It’s clear your woeful “indoctrination” at a Christian university must have occurred 50 years ago, or you’ve just chosen to be willfully ignorant. Here are the scientific answers to your three nonsense questions, plus answers to twelve other scientific answers to creationist nonsense questions, plus an explanation of what theory means in science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

      Evolution is a proven scientific theory; confirmed completely by DNA science. I don’t know if you’ve heard about DNA science yet, you’re questions indicate you haven’t, so here’s a site about DNA & evolution which you’ll likely choose to ignore. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f3686d8effe7630c6305812fed8ef372ad42cc7e5469029b51b051324c045ed.jpg

      • WARREN

        Sarcasm never wins an argument. And the majority is not always right. As for DNA, Wikipedia says (DNA: Evolution), “DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce. However, it is UNCLEAR how long in the 4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their genetic material.” Evolving from a one-celled organism to a human is something like going from the blueprint for a doghouse to that of the Pentagon building. Where does all the additional information come from?

        • mason

          As the Scientific American article says (that you clearly can’t comprehend) you’re just tossing out red herring creationist nonsense. When I say your creationist nonsense is nonsense I’m not being sarcastic … I mean to be as blunt as I would to a flat Earther.

          • WARREN

            Mason, yes, you are being sarcastic again (Flat earthers are not necessarily religious or creationists), and by the way, you haven’t addressed my five questions (I have a lot more.) Warren

          • mason

            Your five nonsense questions are answered plus ten more in the Scientific American article “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” You’re a Creationist. That says it all regarding your non-scientific beliefs.

          • WARREN

            Hello Mason, Being new to Patheos/Disqus, I did not realize until last night that our conversation would appear in my e-mail folder. It was in my e-mail folder that a found a working link to the 16-year-old Scientific American article to which you have referred. However, I didn’t find much in this article to answer my five questions. 1. The article doesn’t address living fossils. 2. The article doesn’t answer the question of why we have billions of fossils despite the fact that in the modern world fossils rarely form. 3. The article doesn’t talk about the Grand Canyon. 4. The S.A. article mentions Stephen Jay Gould but fails to mention that the reason he and Niles Eldridge invented the Punctuated Equilibria theory was to try to explain why there are so few transitional fossils/missing links. 5. The article doesn’t mention space aliens. If I missed something in the article, I am sure you will let me know. Warren

          • ThaneOfDrones

            (Flat earthers are not necessarily religious or creationists)

            Well then what a HUGE COINCIDENCE that the correlation is so high.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          “DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce. However, it is UNCLEAR how long in the 4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their genetic material.”

          Yes, and…? How does this refute anything said by mason, or make any point in favour of creationism? Or are you just trying to distract us by changing the topic?

          Evolving from a one-celled organism to a human… Where does all the additional information come from?

          1) Please define “information”. It has a precise mathematical meaning. In fact, multiple precise mathematical meanings. Would this be Kolmogorov information or Shannon information you are referring to? Or you could stop throwing around terms you don’t understand.

          2) Life did not evolve from a one-celled organism to humans overnight. It took hundreds of millions to billions* of years during which the information inhabited many different bodies. The information in DNA evolved through that vast span of time by known methods: point mutations, gene duplications, whole chromosome or genome duplications, perhaps the occasional frame shift mutation. A majority of the DNA in your genome is junk. There is plenty of evidence for all of those known methods of information change.

          Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate
          Paramvir Dehal, Jeffrey L Boore (2005) PLOS Biology

          https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314

          3) It would be a mistake to consider only humans. We also have the genomes of chimpanzees, many mammals, many other vertebrates, many invertebrates, many single-celled eukaryotes, lots of different species of bacteria and archaea. It’s not a question of getting from a particular single-celled creature to humans, it’s a question of how all of the data fit together.

          * Depending on your choice of one-celled organism. Are you talking about the very first one-celled organism? Or the fist eukaryote? Or the last one-celled organism in the lineage?

        • se habla espol

          Where does all the additional information come from?

          Evolution, as long as you consider both aspects. Mutation (with similar processes) is the “try this” aspect for new information; Natural Selection is the “works”, “doesn’t work” or “doesn’t matter” decision function for whether the new information is ‘remembered’ or ‘forgotten’.

      • I happen to agree with you about species evolution. However, let’s not forget that the only difference between us and Bronze Age goatherds is that we have shinier gadgets.

    • larry parker

      I’ll take a shot. Warren, you seem to be familiar with Wikipedia. Go there and look up; living fossils, fossil formation, Grand Canyon formation, and missing links. Now, I know wiki isn’t always the best source, but one thing they do is provide links to peer reviewed scientific sources. Ironchariots.org is also a good source for questions asked (and answerer) a thousand times.
      As for your last question, I am going to need a citation. You have a habit of misrepresenting what scientists say.

      • WARREN

        Here is the link, Larry, which you requested: https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/scientists-say-humans-are-alone-in-the-universe/. Wikipedia articles are dominated by the science establishment, so it is not surprising they do not usually reflect the alternate thinking on origins. Because no scientists were around for the alleged millions/billions of years of evolution, we sometimes must use our logic. If evolution is powerful enough to turn a single-celled organism into a human over time and if mutations and natural selection are constantly in play, why have so many species seemingly remain untouched over millions of years. That is not logical.

        • larry parker

          Ah, the NYTimes. You need to read past the headline. I followed the link in the article to a paper published in an on line journal. The authors of the paper are trying to solve the Fermi paradox by disputing someone else’s results of Drake-like equations. There conclusion shows a substantial (not total) probability of no other life. It also looks like this paper has only been submitted. It has not passed peer review. Even if this turns out to be true, it does not debunk evolution.
          “That is not logical” – Based on your strawman understanding of evolution, I doubt your expertise in logic. Sorry the ‘science establishment’ is conspiring to harsh your, but I can’t do anything about your willful ignorance.

          • MadScientist1023

            That citation was the New York Post, not the New York Times. The latter is a respectable news outlet that cares about facts. The former is a right-wing tabloid that doesn’t, but which picked a name similar enough to a respected news source to borrow their credibility. Same thing that the Washington Times does.

          • larry parker

            Thanks, I knew it was the Post, I don’t why I wrote the Times. I’ll make an edit.

          • WARREN

            Don’t like the message? Blame the messenger. Actually I am surprised you guys hadn’t heard of this story before I mentioned it, but it appeared in many other sources such as Phys Org (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-advanced-civilization-universe.html) and Cosmos (https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/stop-looking-for-et-modelling-suggests-we-re-alone-in-the-universe). As Larry has pointed out, the research really deals with the Fermi Paradox, so if you want to criticize something, don’t criticize the New York Post or the Oxford scientists, criticize Enrico Fermi and his Paradox if you don’t agree with it.

          • MadScientist1023

            The “message” is nothing but speculation, utterly lacking anything in the way of proof. Don’t you care about proof, Mr. Oort-Cloud-isn’t-real? It certainly has nothing informative to offer a discussion of evolution.

          • WARREN

            The Oort Cloud is speculation. It has to do with evolution in that comets challenge the long ages evolution needs. Space Com says, “Comets are pristine remnants left over from the solar system’s formation 4.6 billion years ago, rather than younger fragments created by collisions between larger bodies, a new study suggests.” (https://www.space.com/33597-how-comets-form-rosetta-mission.html) But it has been estimated the average life of a comet is only 10,000 years (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-long-does-it-take-comets-melt). Therefore all comets should have long ago disappeared.

          • MadScientist1023

            If you’re trying to attack the age of the Earth, you’re going to need to do much better than Oort clouds. But at least now there’s a clear answer that you’re a young Earth creationist.
            How do you explain the fact there are civilizations that pre-date your Biblical flood, but that never mention it happening?

          • WARREN

            Well, I will continue using the Oort Cloud to suggest there is something drastically wrong with the dating system for the solar system, until I get a rational answer as to why I shouldn’t use it. There were, of course, civilizations before the Flood (“Cain was then building a city,” Genesis 4:17)

          • MadScientist1023

            Yes, there were civilizations before the time of the alleged flood. Civilizations that were present before, during, and after the point in time when it allegedly occurred, but who make no note of it happening. How do you explain that?

          • Maybe you could also mention it’s just a model. This is a big galaxy, not to mention a big (just the observable) Universe, but being limited by the speed of light, not to mention our pathetic technology that requires thousands of years just to reach the closest star, gives strong limits to look for evidences in that regard.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          why have so many species seemingly remain untouched over millions of years.

          How do you know those species remain untouched? WERE YOU THERE?

          • WARREN

            WERE YOU THERE? ThaneOfDrones, you sound like a creationist.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      If mutations and natural selection are constantly in play, why do we find so many examples of living fossils, species today which haven’t changed and look just like their ancestors millions of years ago?

      1) Apparently you would rather look at the few examples of such non-changing species and ignore the vast multitude that have changed. This indicates a failure to logic.

      2) How do you know they haven’t changed? Usually all we have from fossils is the ‘hard parts’ – skeletons, shells. You wouldn’t see any changes in coloration, soft tissue, biochemistry, etc.

      3) Even the few examples with which you are familiar are not as unchanging as you may think. Horseshoe crabs are one example. There were horseshoe crabs 450 million years ago, there are horseshoe crabs today. But not the same species, and a surprising amount is known about their evolution.

      Horseshoe crab phylogeny and independent colonizations of fresh water: ecological invasion as a driver for morphological innovation
      James C. Lamsdell (2015) Palaeontology 59(2) 181-194
      https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12220

      • WARREN

        Research what a living fossil is. Wikipedia, for instance, has several examples. Our eyes can tell us whether or not a living species looks like or almost looks like an ancestor fossil purported to be millions of years old. What’s so hard about understanding that? Change is a relative term. There are limits to how much a species can change. Check out “microevolution,” the only kind of evolution which can be observed. (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01). The jump from micro to macro or Darwinian evolution can only be theoretical.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          Our eyes can tell us whether or not a living species looks like or almost looks like an ancestor fossil purported to be millions of years old. What’s so hard about understanding that?

          Well to quote a recent objection, “Usually all we have from fossils is the ‘hard parts’ – skeletons, shells. You wouldn’t see any changes in coloration, soft tissue, biochemistry, etc.” Your response fails to meet even the criteria laid out in what you responded to.

          There are limits to how much a species can change.

          An assertion without evidence. Anyone familiar with breeding of dogs, pigeons, flowers, cabbage would know otherwise.

          Check out “microevolution,” the only kind of evolution which can be observed.

          But as you just pointed out, we can observe fossils. So to claim we cannot observe things from the past is foolish and self-contradictory. And besides fossils, we have the DNA. You lose.

          Beyond that, there are numerous instances of observed speciation. Speciation in Action: Fruit Fly Evolution Causes Cascading Changes In Wasp Species

          • WARREN

            A dog, a pigeon, a flower, and a cabbage can only change into a different variety of a dog, a pigeon, a flower, or a cabbage. That’s where change is limited and what we mean by microevolution.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            So a wolf can only change into a different variety of wolf? Then dogs don’t exist.
            Cabbage can only beget cabbage? So much for kale, brocolli, caulifower, etc.
            When the varieties get different enough, we call them different species.

            Once again you state that “change is limited” without citing any actual evidence that this is so.

          • WARREN

            A wolf IS a dog, genetically speaking. And cabbage can never be turned into apples. What our eyes tell us is that while there are many varieties of dogs and doglike animals such as wolves with which dogs can successfully mate, I am not aware of a single animal which is a half-dog and half something else.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            A wolf IS a dog, genetically speaking.

            A human IS a fish, cladistically speaking.

            And cabbage can never be turned into apples.

            Who said they could be? Which aspect of current scientific theory are you trying to question? Of course you believe that mud can be turned into a man, and a man’s rib can be turned into a woman, so I understand that you are a bit confused.

            Congratulations to This Whale and Dolphin on Their Baby!
            Are whales and dolphins the same species? Where do we draw the line?

          • WARREN

            Whales, dolphins, and porpoises can interbreed (where size allows), meaning they must have had the same ancestor. Creationists would call this an example of a “created kind” or baramin, just like tigers and lions, wolves and German shepherds, zebras and donkeys as well as Asians, Africans, Northern Europeans and Neanderthals (100% humans which can/could all interbreed),

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Ah yes, baraminology, the “science” of “kinds” intended to reduce the number of ark-bound animals needed to explain the current proliferation of life, because they refuse to accept the current findings of science on the age of the earth and the evolution of life.
            There are other indicators of common ancestry which Creationists routinely ignore, so why do they care about this one? For example, there is genetic evidence, such as the broken human gene for an enzyme to make vitamin C, a broken gene which is shared with all other apes.
            Just think about how long a horse population would have to be separated from a donkey population for their interbreeding situation to develop into what it is today.

          • Sol III

            lol, it’s okay, we understand, poor thing, bless your heart…

            Well, at least you understand that asians, africans, and Northern europeans are all the same species….many of your cohorts don’t think so. Keep up the good work!

          • Or that the truth is a book that describes TWO ways for the humans to be created, one with them simply popping up and the other later on from mud and from a rib of said first human, and is so lacking even on scientific knowledge that was obtained even during the Greek era (Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, etc).

          • ThaneOfDrones

            A wolf IS a dog, genetically speaking.

            I won’t be looking to you for genetics advice. It is possible to distinguish wolves from dogs from coyotes to hybrids by using genetic testing.

          • WARREN

            Wikipedia says, “The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris when considered a subspecies of the gray wolf or Canis familiaris when considered a distinct species). I say that they can interbreed, making them the same species according to the classical definition of “species.”

          • ThaneOfDrones

            when considered a subspecies

            There are multiple definitions of “species” and “subspecies.” It should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that you can define any boxes you want, but when you get out into the world and try to make it conform to your pre-drawn boxes, things get messy.

          • MadScientist1023

            “I am not aware of a single animal which is a half-dog and half something else.”

            Is that what you think a transitional species is?

          • Sol III

            “And cabbage can never be turned into apples”
            Rofl! This is a prime example of what the article author was taking about….fake evolution premises repeated ad nauseam by creationists which they then debunk with their so-called ‘sophisticated’ science….oi vey.

            No evolution scientists or theory ever claimed that a cabbage would turn into an apple. Or a dog to turn into a cat. Or a duck to turn into a crocodile. That’s not evolution. That’s magic. Which makes it creationism. And since it never happens, you just debunked your own argument.

          • WARREN

            Well, it is claimed that a single organism over billions of years eventually evolved into a human.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Other claims that are made:
            A single-celled organism over billions of years evolved into a fruitfly.
            A single-celled organism over billions of years evolved into a house cat.
            A single-celled organism over billions of years evolved into a maple tree.
            A single-celled organism over billions of years evolved into a single-celled organism.

          • WARREN

            And I don’t believe any of it.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Nature doesn’t care whether you believe in it.
            We’ve got the DNA, we win.

          • Sol III

            lol, first of all, billions of years….

            Second of all, you’re missing the point of species designations on the ‘tree of life’. The diversity we have today is the current end-product of previous evolution. Cabbage and apples are two completely different species from two completely different branches of the tree. They’ve already diverged long ago from a common ancestor (they diverge after the Kingdom clade Angiosperms to be two different Orders)

            One cannot ever become the other.

            What you could possibly do, however, is artificially select cabbage over multiple breeding generations to make it look like an apple. [all the in-between stock would be transitional species, btw]. But it will never be an apple. It would always be a subspecies of cabbage.

            btw, did you know that the cabbage (brassica oleracea) we have today is just one of many food cultivars (subspecies) of the plant Brassica? That parent plant (genus) has also spawned other subspecies such as broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, choy sum, rutabaga, turnip…

            It’s really not complicated to understand.

          • WARREN

            Remember what famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, ” The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'” (Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977). I repeat, as I’ve said before, Darwinian or macro-evolution, as opposed to micro-evolution, cannot be seen; it can only be considered theoretical.

          • Sol III

            Dude, creationists are the only ones who get hung up on the micro versus macro evolution thing. And you’re also forgetting that we don’t just have fossils, we also have dna which fills in a great many gaps. The only way you can use the ‘macro’ gaps in the fossil records as evidence for your god is if you believe he did multiple creation events.

            In the real world, with real science, we understand that fossilization takes very specific conditions. We are never going to find a fossil of every creature that ever lived, nor even one fossil of ever single type of creature that ever lived. Just like we can’t necessarily find the remains of your parents, and their parents, and their parents, and their parents and their parents, and their parents….

            And if you’re seriously going to hold anthropologists/biologists/geneticists to some standard where they must find a fossil of every species, and every transitional species that every lived….then please expect to have the same ‘certainty’ of evidence for your God claims. You currently have zero so there’s a lot a work ahead of you.

            It’s a prime example of the difference in intellect between the science minded and the superstitious minded. You try so hard for this massively high bar on science (which is eventually met anyway, so good luck with that) while your bar for evidence for your magic claims is laying on the ground by your feet.

            The simple fact is, we all know there is no amount of evidence that will ever change the mind of a creationist. We’ve all done that since the invention of the internet. Most of us don’t even bother anymore, there isn’t any point. The science is settled, and the creationists will continue to ride the coat tails of all the knowledge and advances that are made by the science-educated.

            I accept that your brains are wired differently than science-minded people. I don’t seek out creationists on their website to try to educate or ridicule them. But you came to our forum. And just to point out the obvious, this is not a science forum, it’s a forum for politically liberal atheists.

            Your ‘gotcha’ moments are not gotchas at all, they’re just tedious and repetitious. If you really want to do yourself a favor, stop trying to learn about science from creationist propaganda websites and read the actual work and evidence by actual scientists. And then be prepared to have your mind blown by how much knowledge and evidence is really already accumulated.

          • Gehennah

            See, Gould couldn’t stand people like you, taking his quotes out of context. Additionally he was explaining punctuated equilibrium, which perfectly explained why we did see the fossil record the way it did.

            But there is no real difference between micro and macro evolution. And we definitely do see transitions at the “macro” level. Look at the wonderful examples of therapod to bird evolution.

          • WARREN

            It is a long-established trick for debaters to accuse their opponent of quoting out of context. In some cases that might be true, but in what way was Gould’s quote taken out of context? His quote is perfectly clear and provides the exact reason he and Niles Eldredge invented the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. The transitional fossils appear to be missing and Gould’s theory explains why he thinks this could be true. And you don’t need to remind me that Gould was a harsh critic of creationists.

            From your evolutionary friends at Berkeley:”Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be OBSERVED over short periods of time.”
            “It is NOT necessarily easy to ‘SEE’ macroevolutionary history”
            https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

          • Gehennah

            The context that you gave it seemed to imply that he was against evolution and even that gradualistic evolution doesn’t take place.

            And yeah, it isn’t easy to see it, however we do see it.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            “It is not NECESSARILY easy to ‘SEE’ macroevolutionary history”

            You set yourself up for that one.

          • WARREN

            But Utka said “there is no real difference.”

          • ThaneOfDrones

            I repeat

            Yes you do. This argument has already been dealt with. You are extremely rude to repeat your argument without dealing with the criticisms already made of it.

          • WARREN

            It is rude to say you dealt with it when you haven’t dealt with it. Where are the fossils that show the gradual evolution of one kind of creature to another kind of creature? I have asked for a fossil “motion picture” showing such a gradual step-by-step process. Please furnish the name of the site where I can find the pictures.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            It is rude to say you dealt with it when you haven’t dealt with it.

            And the quote from Phillip Johnson? Are you still going to ignore that?

            Apparently you do not have access to a public library, where you might find the book by Don Prothero already mentioned.
            Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters
            Donald R. Prothero. With Original Illustrations by Carl Buell.
            Columbia University Press (2007)
            ISBN: 9780231139625

            Jaws to ears in the ancestors of mammals

            The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

            Transitional forms

            Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

            List of transitional fossils

          • ThaneOfDrones

            There you go. In return, I expect you to post unaltered video footage of God creating a new species from nothing.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Darwinian or macro-evolution, as opposed to micro-evolution, cannot be seen

            “I believe in inches, but not in miles”

          • ThaneOfDrones

            How (and how fast) do new species form?


            The scenario I just described is called allopatric speciation (from the Greek meaning “different places”). But there is evidence that species can form without such geographic isolation, especially in the case of polyploidy in plants, in which two species hybridize (or a single species doubles its genome), and genetic processes in the hybrid make it a different species from either parent. This can take only a handful of generations. And we are learning that, more often than we thought, species can still split while exchanging some of their genes…

          • Sol III

            Actually, I just reread this statement.

            You don’t actually think that evolutionary scientists are suggesting that one specific single cell organism lived billions of years and then turned into a human….or do you? LOL

          • WARREN

            I believe you know exactly what I meant. According to evolution, it was a gradual step-by-step process but it started and ended as I said.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Nope. No evolutionary biologist would claim that evolution has ended. Also, the rates of evolution may differ from situation to situation, an interpretation which goes all the way back to Darwin.

          • Sol III

            Just checkin’…..:)

          • se habla espol

            I am not aware of a single animal which is a half-dog and half something else.

            Just as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

          • WARREN

            So what was the alleged ancestor of humans and apes? Theoretically, wouldn’t he/she be part ape and part human, genetically speaking.

          • se habla espol

            So what was the alleged ancestor of humans and apes?

            The most recent such ancestor is usually referred to as a “proto-ape”, being the ancestor of all apes, including humans. Because of evolution, the “proto-ape” species is not likely to be existent and longer.

            Theoretically,
            wouldn’t he/she be part ape and part human, genetically speaking.

            No. Since the genus Homo is a member of the ape clade, there can be no such critter as “part ape and part human”. That’s trivial biology.

          • WARREN

            Okay, I should have been more precise and said “Homo sapiens” instead of humans and “P. troglodytes” instead of chimpanzee, for instance. I would think the last common ancestor of P. troglodytes and Homo sapiens must have had genetic information for both P. troglodytes and Homo sapiens. So I would call this unknown ancestor part human and part chimp. Why is that wrong?. So, getting back to dogs, has any animal been discovered in nature which contained genetic information for both a dog (Canis lupus familiaris) and for an animal that is not Canis?

          • se habla espol

            Okay, I should have been more precise and said “Homo sapiens” instead of humans and “P. troglodytes” instead of chimpanzee, for instance. I would think the last common ancestor of P. troglodytes and Homo sapiens must have had genetic information for both P. troglodytes and Homo sapiens.

            Since the genomes of H. sap. and Pan troglodytes are about 97% identical*, it’s not just the LCA that qualifies as “part human and part chimp”. Making some reasonable assumptions** about the probabilities involved, the LCA would have been at least 97% human and 97% chimp, rather than half and half as you stated earlier.

            So I would call this unknown ancestor part human and part chimp. Why is that wrong?.

            Assuming you to be a member of H. sap., you are part chimp: 97% or so, with only ca 3% of you being specifically human. Likewise, a chimp is 97% human, and only 3% specifically chimp.

            So, getting back to dogs, has any animal been discovered in nature which contained genetic information for both a dog (Canis lupus familiaris) and for an animal that is not Canis?

            Yes: every species that exists, including Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens, has genomic content identical to that of Canis, to various proportions, with the rest being different. C. lupus lupus likely has the most similarity; Ursinis, a little less, …

            ——————————————
            * The number may be off by a percentage point or two, but it’s not less than 95%, IIRC. The number I use is close enough, so I’ll not bother trying to look up later data.

            ** Like the assumption that the rate of identical, separate mutations surviving in the two populations is negligible.***

            **This is a trivia sample of the difference between creation “science” and real science: real science is constantly asking “in what respects can I be wrong”, identifying them, and addressing them.

          • WARREN

            Yes, but we don’t need genetics to see similarities between species. Humans have two eyes; dogs have two eyes. Humans have four limbs; dogs have four limbs. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to be evidence of a tree of life, various limbs branching off from other limbs due to evolution. Creationists interpret this to mean a common Creator who didn’t need to reinvent the wheel every time He created a new kind of creature. But our eyes tell us that there are limits to how much branching can occur. We see cats begatting only cats; chimps only chimps; and humans only humans. Although in some cases a lot of variety can occur (such as among dogs), my PhD-in-genetics friend tells me that our genes our designed to actually limit how much change can occur. Remember what famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, ” The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'” (Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977).

          • se habla espol

            {Preamble: your comments would make more sense were you to start a new paragraph when you start a new subject.}

            Yes, but we don’t need genetics to see similarities between species.

            Since evolution and genetics work the way they work, it’s more precise and accurate to discuss genotypes rather than phenotypes. Which phenotypal similarities would you define as significant? The same phenotypal characters can result from different genes, so phenotypal similarities are much less useful, accurate, and reliable than genetic analysis.

            Humans have two eyes; dogs have two eyes. Humans have four limbs; dogs have four limbs. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to be evidence of a tree of life, various limbs branching off from other limbs
            due to evolution.

            The current state of evolution has moved well beyond the surface level of phenotypic classification. Genetic analysis has found errors in the “tree of life” presentation based on mere phenotypal similarities.

            Creationists interpret this to mean a common Creator who didn’t need to reinvent the wheel every time He created a new kind of creature.

            Just like evolution, which only sometimes reinvents genotypic features.

            But our eyes tell us that there are limits to how much branching can occur.

            And evolution tells us why there are limits to the amount of branching, as well as the nature of the possible branching.

            We see cats begatting only cats; chimps only chimps; and humans only humans.

            Evolution tells us why, in the short term, we see the “like begets like” appearance, as well as why we see so much variety in the paleontological analysis.

            Although in some cases a lot of variety
            can occur (such as among dogs), my PhD-in-genetics friend tells me that our genes our designed to actually limit how much change can occur.

            Yes, the genes limit the change per generation: that’s why evolution takes so much longer than creationism is comfortable with to come up with a new species from a population of an ancestral one. It’s not a hard-and-fast limit, though. Currently, each generation of an H. sap lineage shows about 100 differences in the genotype from the “perfect” replication: go too far, with too many ‘wrong’ differences, and you get phenomena like the spontaneous abortions which we see in ca 50% of human conceptions. As we know, natural selection begins at conception (the “womb” is just another environment the conceptus has to survive in for its genotype to be able to propagate).

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Creationists interpret this to mean a common Creator who didn’t need to reinvent the wheel every time He created a new kind of creature.

            1) God, being all-powerful, could have done it any way he wanted. So why did He always do it in a way that is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation? WHAT A COINCIDENCE.
            2) God, being all-powerful, would not be burdened by reinventing the wheel every time. This is an example of how your God is a projection of your own human self. Humans, being finite, have to worry about things like conserving resources. Not so for in infinite God.

            But our eyes tell us that there are limits to how much branching can occur. We see cats begatting only cats; chimps only chimps; and humans only humans.

            We see so much variety arising in our short lifetimes. Just consider what that means for evolutionary time. Physics, astronomy, geology and palaeontology tell us that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

            Although in some cases a lot of variety can occur (such as among dogs), my PhD-in-genetics friend tells me that our genes our designed to actually limit how much change can occur.

            They may be good friends, but they are awful geneticists.

            Remember what famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote…

            I will quote a comment I already posted to this thread. It is unfortunate that you apparently did not read or understand it. You are wasting your own time and that of others.

            For a response to this, I will turn to Phillip E. Johnson, intelligent design creationist and author of Darwin on Trial, ISBN 0-89526-535-4, footnote on page 52:

            Terms like “rapidly” in this connection refer to geological time, and readers should bear in mind that 100,000 years is a brief period to a geologist. The punctuationists’ emphatic repudiation of “gradualism” is confusing, and tends to give the impression they are advocating saltationism. What they seem to mean is that the evolutionary change occurs over many generations by Darwin’s step-by-step method, but in a relatively brief period of geological time.

            What an important point. I wonder why Johnson buried it in a footnote…

            You should give up. You are repeating lies that have already been debunked.

            The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record…

            We observe many examples of transitional forms. Well-known (to palaeontologists) examples include: series of trilobites, the fish-to-tetrapod transition, the mammalian inner-ear sequence, whale ancestors. See the book by Prothero (cited in a separate comment in this thread) for many more examples. If creationism were true, the number of expected transition species would be approximately zero, so finding evidence of even a single transition species is a problem for creationism.

          • WARREN

            I never said that Gould didn’t believe in evolution, as Johnson was verifying. But as Johnson said, Gould rejected gradualism in order to explain the lack of transition species. Evolution happens in quick bursts. In other words, as I see it, according to Gould evolution happens too fast to leave any evidence.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            But as Johnson said, Gould rejected gradualism in order to explain the lack of transition species.

            Johnson, in his footnote, revealed something about the timescale palaeontologists deal with, which provides some important context for interpreting the “sudden” appearance of fossil characteristics. There are also other explanations for what Gould described, such as allopatric speciation.

          • se habla espol

            Have you run out of excuses and misrepresentations of evolution?

            Why should anyone feel a need to respond to a partial quote from an alleged Authority (Gould), as if his words are somehow holy? In reality (e.g. science), an opinion (“belief”) is subject to being overruled by empirical evidence. Gould’s has been. So has yours, were you honest enough to admit it.

          • WARREN

            Now you are bashing Stephen Jay Gould (“alleged Authority”). Wasn’t he an evolutionist and harsh critic of creationists? You could just simply say that you don’t agree with him.

          • se habla espol

            First, science doesn’t do authoritarianism. A scientist may be an authority, but only based on his scientific work, and only based on the validity of that work. Later research—and even some contemporaneous work—has found invalidated some of Gould’s opinions.

            I could say that I don’t agree with him, but my agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. When we’re talking Evolution, we’re talking reality, not beliefs and other opinions.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Do you consider Gould to be infallible?

          • MadScientist1023

            What Gould said was an opinion, one that is now over 40 years old. Many more transitional fossils have been found in the interim. There are quite a few of them. However, you wouldn’t know this by staying in creationist echo chambers like AiG and creation.com. They’ve spent the last few years claiming that transitional fossils aren’t transitional fossils. And since their readers don’t actually understand the scientific definition of what a transitional fossil is, they believe the creationist definition, the one which is not what evolutionary biology uses. By redefining “transitional fossil” as something that neither exists nor is predicted by evolution (ex: the crocoduck), they can claim there are no “transitional fossils”. As a result, you have creationists who think a transitional fossil is something else, so they can ignore it when such a fossil is staring them in the face.

          • Perhaps you could also explain why we’ve vestigial organs, or why not only cats, dogs, humans, and so many other animals share so many DNA but also characteristics as the way the eyes are wired, the same number of limbs (and fingers, even if cats and dogs have almost lost one), teeth so similar with different types of them, etc.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            These are poorly formed questions. “he/she”? We’re talking about populations of thousands of individuals. It is not a single person. You have already been told that.

          • Gehennah

            Humans are apes.

          • Gehennah

            Lung fish – great example of a living transitional form.

          • Gehennah

            Are broccoli and kale cabbage?

        • ThaneOfDrones

          Research what a living fossil is.

          Often called “living fossils,” horseshoe crab…

      • WARREN

        Ignore.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      Seeing as it is so difficult for nature to create a fossil (check Wikipedia), why are there billions of fossils around (an easy task for a catastrophic global flood)?

      If you really wanted to know these things (which I doubt) I would direct you to:
      Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
      by Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press (2007)
      ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

      Despite its title, this is not really a book about evolution. Rather, it debunks every geology-related creationism argument.

      A longer answer:
      Because of the way fossils form, we have lots of some kinds of fossils and not many of others. Fossils form where sediments build up, so they are more common is areas that used to be low-lying. The white cliffs of Dover for example, contains vast multitudes of tiny sea critter fossils. Bat fossils tend to be rare. Nonetheless, some very informative examples exist.

      Then there is the argument from large numbers. How many of any particular species (or ‘kind’) are around? Returning to horseshoe crabs, I found this: “One conservative estimate places the number at 2.3 to 4.5 million horseshoes on the Atlantic Coast between New Jersey and Virginia; other studies believe the number to be higher.” That’s a limited geological area, but anyway. Then multiply it by the deep time that scientific evidence supports (but YECs deny).

      If the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of geology, why is there no evidence of erosion between the various strata?

      Re-read the part about fossils forming in low-lying areas. With the Grand Canyon, you have two time spans that are interesting:
      1) The laying down of all those layers.
      2) The cutting of the river channel through the layers.
      During (1), the area that is now the Grand Canyon was a low area. That’s why sediment settled there. Duh.

      Why are missing links the rule instead of the exception?

      We have plenty of examples of numerous, gradual changes in the fossil record. See the Prothero book for some good examples. In the 1990s, the favourite fossil examples of discontinuity used by Creationists were whale ancestors and bird feathers. With some great palaeontology work on both of those, Creationists will now probably move on to other examples.

      Why have Oxford scientists just recently admitted that it appears evolution hasn’t created any other intelligent species in the whole wide cosmos–we are alone?

      1) You need to explain what this has to do with the evidence for evolution on the one planet we are certain contains life, and which displays a great deal of evidence for evolution.
      2) Our ability to gather evidence on other planets is limited, on planets outside our solar system, even more so.
      3) Is the Creationist explanation any better? What becomes of John 14:2?

      In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.

      You should work on quality of questions, not quantity.

      • WARREN

        Hello, ThaneOfDrones
        1.You are relying on deep time to explain how so many fossils were formed even though that can’t be observed. The fact remains that a catastrophic global flood in my opinion is the best explanation for why we have billions of fossils today, even though I admit that can’t be observed either.
        2. The Grand Canyon is supposed to represent two billion years of geological history. Are you claiming all the strata were laid down at the same time, as creationists believe? If each formation was laid down as a separate event (http://www.grandcanyonnaturalhistory.com/pages_nature/geology/cover_layers.html), separated by millions of years, there should be evidence of erosion between layers, lots of it.
        3. Gould and Eldredge were attacked by fellow paleontologists when they first proposed their Punctuated Equilibrium theory (should more accuratedly be called Punctuated Equilibria theory) for giving ammunition to the enemy–creationists. I am old enough to remember that. They were famed paleotologists who should know a missing link when they saw one or the absence of missing links when they noticed the extreme number of gaps in the fossil record. Gould wrote, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Natural History 86:22 (1977)). As I previously wrote in this discussion (comments which mysteriously seem to have disappeared), alleged transistional fossils are snapshots rather than motion pictures. By that I mean as snapshots we can’t see what came before, if anything, or what came later. A fossil motion picture would show us a series of fossils displaying the gradual change from one kind of organism to another, but these movies are missing. So, was Archaeopteryx a link between dinosaurs and birds or just a bird with some reptilian features, like today’s hoatzin chicks? We can’t tell from its snapshot.
        4. Is there any evolutionist who believes evolution happened only on Earth? If I may say so, that comment of yours is very strange. Anyway, the Oxford scientists were considering the Fermi Paradox, which suggests that our galaxy should by now be overrun with alien space travelers, if the universe is as old as claimed.
        5. The Bible passage is one of my favorites, but it deals with eternity, a different dimension than our finite universe which will one day come to an end.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          1.You are relying on deep time to explain how so many fossils were formed even though that can’t be observed.

          Au contraire. You yourself admitted that we can observe fossils. We can observe DNA. Increasingly, we can sequence DNA from fossils! We can observe light from stars that has been traveling towards us for billions of years.

          2. The Grand Canyon is supposed to represent two billion years of geological history. Are you claiming all the strata were laid down at the same time, as creationists believe? If each formation was laid down as a separate event (http://www.grandcanyonnatur…, separated by millions of years, there should be evidence of erosion between layers, lots of it.

          a) Oh look, you are confusing “formations” with “layers.”

          b) How much excavation have you done? That’s what I thought.

          3. Gould and Eldredge…

          I already made a comment about punctuated equilibrium.

          So, was Archaeopteryx a link between dinosaurs and birds or just a bird with some reptilian features, like today’s hoatzin chicks? We can’t tell from its snapshot.

          Archaeopteryx is clearly an intermediate form. The only question is whether it is on the direct line between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, or an offshoot from it.

          4. Is there any evolutionist who believes evolution happened only on
          Earth? If I may say so, that comment of yours is very strange.

          Good scientists distinguish between what they have evidence for, and what is only speculation. At present we do not have any solid evidence of life on other planets, in this solar system or any other.

          Anyway, the Oxford scientists were considering the Fermi Paradox, which suggests that our galaxy should by now be overrun with alien space travelers, if the universe is as old as claimed.

          So what? They are as free to speculate about the unknown as anyone else. Consider the number of hidden assumptions in their calculations. Even if life developed elsewhere, that does not necessarily entail intelligent life. We wouldn’t know about it unless they engaged in something we are able to detect, such as sending radio transmissions. And space travel is really hard. So far our own species has only been to one neighboring natural satellite, and has send automated probes to slightly outside our solar system.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            BTW, regarding the Grand Canyon, you are just plain wrong in your original question.

            NPS site: Grand Canyon fossils

            The mudstones and siltstones of the Hermit Shale and Supai Group were laid down by a meandering system of rivers and streams in a semi-arid climate about 280 million years ago. The sand grains of the Coconino Sandstone were deposited by wind across large coastal sand dunes about 275 million years ago…
            In the red layers of the Hermit Shale, plant fossils can be found in the mudstone and siltstone left behind by an ancient river system.

          • WARREN

            ThaneOfDrones, your sarcasm is beginning to show, but sarcasm never wins an argument. 1. As I mentioned in other places in this discussion, fossils are snapshots, not moving pictures. 2. Check out this article by a researcher who did work at the Grand Canyon http://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-it-really-exhibit-a-for-evolution-old and another article which shows how a mini-Grand Canyon was created quickly by a minor catastrophe. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/lasting-lessons-mount-st-helens/

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Cite some reputable sources, or stop trying. Those are religious sites, not scientific sites.

          • WARREN

            You keep saying a religious person can’t be a scientist. That is pure bias and shows you are nothing more than a secular believer, The reason for quoting creationist sites is that secular sites rarely publish any research, as good as it might be, which contradicts the establishment theories.

          • MadScientist1023

            Read, sweetie. He said they were religious sites. Last I checked this equation:
            Religious sites aren’t scientific sites = No religious person can be a scientist
            is not valid. Religious websites are not scientific ones. They are not widely read or used by scientists. They are under no obligation to publish anything that’s scientifically accurate. They rarely contain any information from peer-reviewed sources. They are made by a handful of religious individuals with an ideological agenda to push. Granted, all websites have agendas, but scientific ones include facts backed by empirical evidence. That evidence has been signed off on by other scientists who have every incentive to disprove the works of their competitors. Religious sites just need to persuade people to gullible to understand science.

          • WARREN

            Creationist websites are scientific websites maintained by biblical Christians. I know all about the scientific method. Would you not agree that the scientific method cannot fully be used on hypotheses and theories about events that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago?

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Creationist websites are scientific websites maintained by biblical Christians.

            This is false. Science properly done cannot be subjugated to religious censorship.

            Would you not agree that the scientific method cannot fully be used on hypotheses and theories about events that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago?

            NO, I would not agree. The word “fully” in that statement is a weasel word.

          • WARREN

            “Observation” is one of the crucial steps in the scientific method. Please admit that our powers of observation are severely limited since we must view imagined events from millions/billions of years ago from a great distance.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            This is a great reason not to take the Bible seriously: you weren’t there to observe any of it! There is no sound reason to believe in talking snakes.

            But for putative events of long ago, we can observe the evidence left behind. And the many lines of evidence we have found converge to tell us that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, and that there was never a worldwide flood. Evidence includes geological formations, plate tectonics, fossils, anatomical and physiological features, geographical distributions of living populations, the physics of isotope decay, and direct sampling of the genetic material.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            You keep saying a religious person can’t be a scientist.

            No I don’t. That’s just you breaking another commandment by bearing false witness.

            … secular sites rarely publish any research, as good as it might be, which contradicts the establishment theories.

            Another lie. Real science sites routinely publish research that overturns theories. Just not the theories you want to see overturned.

            Stop lying, it gives Christians a bad image.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Famed evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was a devout Christian, wrote an essay:
            Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution
            The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Mar., 1973), pp. 125-129
            Published by: National Association of Biology Teachers

            While Dobzhansky was a Christian, unlike WARREN he was not a lying liar who ignored and warped evidence to suit twisted Creationist views.

          • WARREN

            There are a lot of theistic evolutionists in the world, past and present.

          • WARREN

            To call ICR and Answers in Genesis sites religious sites is a half truth. I just went to ICR and see on the home page they are talking about the benefits of drinking coffee, Bactrian camels, deep sea oil and more. That sounds like science to me. Now you may not agree with their science. So say that and don’t brush them off as just being “religious” sites. I am glad you acknowledge that theories do get overturned. But, of course, I was thinking of secular sites not publishing articles by known creationists which contradict establishment theories, and I think you knew that.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            These are religious sites. Any science or interpretation of science they post is subservient to their religious goals.

            ICR: Principles of Scientific Creationism… Principles of Biblical Creationism

            All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11.
            The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all
            theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form
            are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God’s
            providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and
            his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting
            to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

            This page can be reached by going through their “About Us” menu to find “Core Principles.”

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Answers in Genesis: Statement of Faith

            In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its
            mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to
            provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the
            community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons
            employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers,
            should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the
            statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

            The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is
            divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually
            true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in
            everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual,
            religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such
            fields as history and science.

            The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
            The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
            The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

            No genuine scientific body would declare dogma which cannot be questioned by new evidence.

          • WARREN

            Note: more insults.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Stating that you lied is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Your lies are plain for any reader to see.

            If there is something I wrote that is an actual insult and not an accurate description of things you have actually done, feel free to point them out.

          • Paul Price

            That’s nothing but a biased double standard. Pro-evolutionary sources are parroting the religion of secular humanism, yet they aren’t “religious sites”, are they? Just deal with the evidence and stop making excuses for why you refuse to read any sources that don’t advance your own viewpoint.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            That’s nothing but a biased double standard. Pro-evolutionary sources are parroting the religion of secular humanism, yet they aren’t “religious sites”, are they?

            Applying the same standards to all is a double standard? You do not speak sense.

            Show us the “Statement of faith” of AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) or the National Academy of Sciences. You can’t because they don’t exist.

          • You’d better offer non-creationist sources. Starting with the assumption of Bronze Age legends being real is not science.

          • WARREN

            And you were there to see it. To repeat a question you originally asked, “WERE YOU THERE?”

          • ThaneOfDrones

            The shark. You have jumped it.

          • Wookie Monster
          • And were you too?. The Isaiah quote does not count.

          • WARREN

            1. Observing a fossil is not the same as observing evolution any more than observing a baseball is the same as observing a nine-inning baseball game.
            2. If you look at the pictures of the Grand Canyon formations, they look like layers to me.
            3. And you can tell Archaeopteryx is a link just by looking at a still photo?
            4. The point about life on other planets you made I can agree with and I think is what I have been saying.

            P.S. In another place I posted a link to a website discussing population studies but the link was incorrect and this website doesn’t allow me to edit it. The correct link is https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

          • ThaneOfDrones

            1. Observing a fossil is not the same as observing evolution

            As mentioned, we can observe multiple phenomena (fossils, DNA, geological formations, light from distant galaxies, etc.) and they give a consistent story.
            On the other hand we can read an old book that tells us insects have four legs and pi = 3.

        • Bill Ludlow

          No erosion between layers is the argument of someone who has never studied the geology of the area. Besides the obvious erosion in some areas, there are areas we would not expect to see erosion because they remained a depositional environment. When we see limestone change to shale, for example, what we are seeing is a change in marine environment and we wouldn’t expect erosion because both are formed below sea level. Geology 101.

          • WARREN

            Bill, you are right. I have never done scientific research at the Grand Canyon. But John D. Morris has. So please read his article. http://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-it-really-exhibit-a-for-evolution-old Also, I would strongly suggest you research the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, a small catastrophe, which created a mini-Grand Canyon in a short time. This eruption doesn’t prove the actual Grand Canyon was created by a single event, a catastrophic global flood, but it sure makes it seem very likely. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/lasting-lessons-mount-st-helens/

          • MadScientist1023

            Oh, look. I knew I was going to get to direct a creationist to this post at some point. Here’s a discussion regarding that exact point with an actual geologist.
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2018/07/13/crisis-of-faith-in-flood-geology/
            Spoiler alert: the ash from Mount St. Helen wasn’t even a fraction as durable as the stone in the Grand Canyon.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            ICR and AnswersInGenesis are religious apologetics sites. Stop pretending they have any scientific credibilty.

          • WARREN

            Prejudice is all that is. Creation scientists for the most part go to many of the same secular colleges, study the same courses, and earn the same degrees as their evolutionist classmates.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            What a waste to go through all that and then not do actual science.

        • Well, if there was a global flood why those capricious rocks formations, so abundant in say places rich in granite, are still in place?. Better yet, why the Japanese supposedly lack said type of story or the too-many-to-count issues with an Ark built with Bronze age engineering and technology.

    • Gehennah

      If mutations and natural selection are constantly in play, why do we find so many examples of living fossils, species today which haven’t changed and look just like their ancestors millions of years ago?

      Because if they fit their niche nicely, and are extremely well adapted to their environment, then the selective pressures are going to be minimal for change.

      Seeing as it is so difficult for nature to create a fossil (check Wikipedia), why are there billions of fossils around (an easy task for a catastrophic global flood)?

      Because there have been a lot of living things throughout the existence of life on earth. And a flood doesn’t answer what we find. Why aren’t modern animals found really low down in the fossil record? Why isn’t it more mixed? Why are there actual sedimentary layers, and why are there more dense layers laying on top of less dense layers? Why isn’t everything hydrologically sorted?

      If the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of geology, why is there no evidence of erosion between the various strata?

      There are. Additionally, if you had a massive amount of water carving it out in a short amount of time, you wouldn’t find things like this:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/46a01847bd82d00d3b3727be6c20b4f2ae536376df7573b0e0c916ed0d50e418.jpg

      Why are missing links the rule instead of the exception?

      Because fossilization isn’t common.

      Why have Oxford scientists just recently admitted that it appears evolution hasn’t created any other intelligent species in the whole wide cosmos–we are alone?

      I’d need additional context on this.

      • WARREN

        1. So why didn’t every form of life “find their niche” because every form of life seems to be well adapted to its environment?
        2. The most interesting thing about fossils is that marine fossils appear to be found almost exclusively — on continents. Remember that to become fossils living things have to be buried rapidly before predators or decay destroy them. That’s why a widespread and sudden catastrophe seems like the best explanation for our billions of fossils. Don’t understand your reference to sedimentary layers, as sediment is mineral or organic matter deposited by water, air, or ice, for example, by a flood.
        3. The Mount St. Helen’s eruption shows how even a small catastrophe can have such a great effect on the land. https://creation.com/lessons-from-mount-st-helens
        4. Oxford scientists: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/3/17522810/aliens-fermi-paradox-drake-equation

        • Gehennah

          1. Because selective pressures often change. This isn’t all of the time, but for most organisms, the selective pressures will change.
          2. A flood would have had them hydrologically sorted, not in actual layers. And the reason we find them most on continents is because we are able to dig and look for them more on continents. And the sea level was a good bit higher in the past, the middle of the US was under a fairly shallow sea. But no, a sudden and catastrophic flood doesn’t explain it, especially genetically.
          3. Now compare the mini grand canyon to the actual one. Not only can we tell the different fairly easily due to how it was carved, but you also have nice smooth, sharp curves in the Grand Canyon, you aren’t getting that on a huge catastrophic flood.
          4. You said:

          Why have Oxford scientists just recently admitted that it appears evolution hasn’t created any other intelligent species in the whole wide cosmos–we are alone?

          And then you give me a link to a paper which doesn’t state that at all. So why do you have to lie?

        • ThaneOfDrones

          1. So why didn’t every form of life “find their niche” because every form of life seems to be well adapted to its environment?

          Because the world was not created by a perfect God. Sometimes the niche changes or even disappears.

          2. The most interesting thing about fossils is that marine fossils appear to be found almost exclusively — on continents. Remember that to become fossils living things have to be buried rapidly before predators
          or decay destroy them. That’s why a widespread and sudden catastrophe seems like the best explanation for our billions of fossils. Don’t understand your reference to sedimentary layers, as sediment is mineral
          or organic matter deposited by water, air, or ice, for example, by a flood.

          Do you suppose that’s because we only look for fossils on dry land?
          Or because ocean bottom basalt, which is inherently different from continental crust, gets recycled by plate tectonics?
          So you don’t understand sediment layers. Thank you for your frank admission of incompetence. Do you also fail to understand tree rings?

          3. Citation of religious site

          You were warned about that.

          4. Some random stuff

          Who cares?

          • Ann Kah

            (1) “Well adapted”.
            So why do we have endangered species, and some which we know have only recently gone extinct? Passenger pigeons? The dodo? Mammoths? (Which did coexist with humans, being sixty million years more recent than dinosaurs.) Well adapted, my ass.

        • 4. There’re other explanations to why we’ve found no aliens so far than using as justification “because the Bible says so”. A book misteriously so silent about stuff that can be known even with a rudimentary telescope, not to mention what an omni*** deity would know.

          As for the billions of fossils, haven’t you thought how many hundreds of billions, even maybe trillions, of animals and plants down to microscopic ones, live today, not to mention have lived during the billions of years of Earth’s history?. Because when you’ve so many numbers even the small probability of an animal leaving behind a fossil can and will happen.

        • Ann Kah

          (4) You didn’t read that, did you? I mean, read past the title paragraph?

    • WARREN

      It is becoming clear that this discussion is becoming so complex it is becoming difficult finding one’s way around. It is also becoming clear that a number of commenters are going to remain committed to their worldview, either a biblical worldview (mine) or a leave-God-out-of-it worldview and thus view the evidence or lack of it accordingly. Therefore, some may be happy to know that I will soon will be bowing out of this discussion, but not without some parting shots. For the remaining posts I will be providing substantial evidence (in my view) for the following propositions: 1. Dinosaurs were indeed once contemporaries with humans, 2. There is something drastically wrong with the way mainstream scientists date the world, humanity and the solar system, 3. There is considerable evidence that the Earth once experienced a global flood, and 4. Gradualism as a theory is woefully short of proof, 5. There are numerous hard-to-explain examples of intelligent design. I hope people who pride themselves on having an open mind will read carefully and study the links, even the creationist ones. And you don’t need to ask me to study the evidence or lack of it for evolution. I have been doing that for more than 50 years. Thank you.

      Proposition 1: Dinosaurs were indeed once contemporaries with humans.
      a. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, many dinosaur fossils discovered by more than one paleontologist, contain red blood cells, collagen and proteins, which seemingly should place these fossils, even according to the secular timeline, within the history of humans on earth.
      https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.htm
      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
      b. Dinosaur-like creatures called dragons appear in the folklore of many or most societies around the world, raising the probability the stories were based on actual sightings of dinosaurs.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dragons_in_mythology_and_folklore
      c. Numerous artifacts from ancient times appear to depict dinosaurs.
      https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
      d. It might seem strange that the Chinese zodiac should contain 11 living animals but one fictional one (a dragon), but it wouldn’t be so strange if the ancient Chinese actually saw living dinosaurs, thereby making all the animals of the zodiac living animals at that time.
      e. The Bible contains a possible reference to a sauropod, which it calls the Behemoth (Job 40:15-24).
      Taken altogether, these bits of evidence suggest people shouldn’t be laughed at if they believe dinosaurs and humans might have lived together and seen one another.

      • ThaneOfDrones

        4. Gradualism as a theory is woefully short of proof,

        Proof? It’s not a bleeping mathematical theorem. What it needs is evidence.There are examples of gradualism and not-gradualism available. You have had plenty of time to look up the book by Don Prothero that I recommended quite a while ago. It has some nice examples of gradualism in it.

        5. There are numerous hard-to-explain examples of intelligent design.

        They are hard to explain because they are wrong.

        b. Dinosaur-like creatures called dragons appear in the folklore of many or most societies around the world, raising the probability the stories were based on actual sightings of dinosaurs.

        You are going to count fairy tales as scientific evidence? This means you must also accept unicorns (which after all are in Teh Bible) and mermaids (hey, there’s the transitional species you’ve been denying!),

      • ThaneOfDrones

        a. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, many dinosaur fossils discovered by more than one paleontologist, contain red blood cells, collagen and proteins, which seemingly should place these fossils, even according to the secular timeline, within the history of humans on earth.

        When that was previously mentioned, you called it “undeniable.” But it turns out that many scientists are doubting it because no other lab seems to be able to reproduce the result.

        Bone of contention

        Indeed, in a remarkably pointed critique published in Science, Pavel Pevzner, a computational biologist at the University of California San Diego, described the work as “computationally illiterate,” equating it to a monkey randomly typing a recognizable word in 100,000 attempts.

        In mythology, common Chinese dragons have 4 claws. Only imperial dragons are allowed to have 5 claws. And Japanese dragons have 3 claws. Evolution gone wild!
        Wikipedia

        During the Qing dynasty, the imperial dragon was colored yellow or gold, and during the Ming dynasty it was red.[19]

        Chinese scholars have classified dragons in diverse systems. For instance, Emperor Huizong of the Song dynasty canonized five colored dragons as “kings”.
        The Azure Dragon [Qinglong 青龍] spirits, most compassionate kings.
        The Vermilion Dragon [Zhulong 朱龍 or Chilong 赤龍] spirits, kings that bestow blessings on lakes.
        The Yellow Dragon [Huanglong 黃龍] spirits, kings that favorably hear all petitions.
        The White Dragon [Bailong 白龍] spirits, virtuous and pure kings.
        The Black Dragon [Xuanlong 玄龍 or Heilong 黑龍] spirits, kings dwelling in the depths of the mystic waters.[26]

        What marvelous genetic plasticity that they could be bred in so many different colours!

        Or maybe it’s just a bunch of fairy tales.

      • WARREN

        Proposition 2: There is something drastically wrong with the way mainstream scientists date the world, humanity and the solar system. Some of the many troubling arguments (for evolutionists), in addition to the soft-tissue-in-dinosaurs issue mentioned above, include:
        a. As mentioned elsewhere, comets, which originated when the solar system was born, supposedly 4.5 billion years ago, should have all disappeared long ago because they last only 10,000 years or less, unless one believes in the invisible, mythical Oort Cloud.
        https://www.space.com/33597-how-comets-form-rosetta-mission.html
        https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-long-does-it-take-comets-melt
        b. One population study suggests that if humans first evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago and if there were even a very low population growth rate, there should not be any space left on Earth for people to stand in.
        https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
        c. What some believe to be the oldest written document, the Kish tablet, dates to only 3500 BC, strange considering modern humans supposedly have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet
        d. There are few if any craters on Pluto, but Pluto is showing lots of geological activity which should “send a lot of geophysicists back to the drawing boards.”
        https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33543383
        e. The moon’s recession from the Earth can be measured and quite possibly was faster in the past. Unless one assumes the moon was a late-comer to the solar system (something that can’t be observed), then the moon would at some point in the 4.5 billion years of the solar system have been touching the Earth.
        http://www.icr.org/article/solar-system-earth-moon
        f. Based on the amount of sodium entering the ocean, and even assuming there was no sodium in the ocean to begin with, one study showed the maximum age of the ocean has to be 62 million years.
        https://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth (includes a response to a counter-argument)
        g. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate far too fast for it to be 4.5 billion years old, even if hypothetical reversals of the field are taken into account.
        https://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young (includes responses to counter-arguments.)
        h. The methods used to date rocks and fossils do not appear to be reliable.
        https://news.ncsu.edu/2017/01/radioisotope-dating-flaw-2017/
        https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34531-problem-with-carbon-14-radiometric-dating/

        • ThaneOfDrones

          a. Comets

          Already addressed.

          b. Cretinist population study

          For most of human history, mankind has lacked the knowledge of hygiene and medicine which enhances life spans today.

          c. Oldest written document only 3500 BCE

          Depends on what you mean by “written” and “document.” There are cave paintings and petroplyphs much older than that (tens of thousands of years old)

          Wikipedia: History of Writing: Proto-Writing

          The first writing systems of the Early Bronze Age were not a sudden invention. Rather, they were a development based on earlier traditions of symbol
          systems that cannot be classified as proper writing but have many of
          the characteristics of writing. These systems may be described as
          “proto-writing.” They used ideographic or early mnemonic symbols to convey information, but it probably directly contained no natural language.
          These systems emerged in the early Neolithic period, as early as the 7th millennium BC evidenced by the Jiahu symbols in China.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            d. Pluto

            Pluto is mentioned in Teh Bible (KJV) precisely zero times.

            f. Salt in the ocean

            Speaking of salt water; water-based life tends to be specialised for either salt water or fresh water. Why weren’t they all killed when the mythical global flood overtopped the highest mountains?

            Salinity History of the Earth’s Ocean

            Early ideas that steady riverine input of salt to the oceans causes salinity to increase with time failed to recognize the geologic processes that intermittently cause salt to be removed from the sea and then later released following tectonic uplift. Nor did they correctly assess the probable initial origin of salt in the sea or consider
            possible small changes in ocean volume over time.

            What a coincidence: a proper understanding of plate tectonics is exactly the sort of problem Creationists would suffer from when trying to approach a problem like this. Be assured they make other errors as well.

            g. ****ing magnets, how do they work?

            I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find that Creationists are doing it wrong, ignoring much known science and flogging outdated studies that they can distort to support their own pet theories

            linky

            The scientific community has been quick to respond to the age data
            presented by creationists, and they have provided several counters to
            the claims of Barnes. Any flaws found in Barnes’ work also discredit the
            work of Humphreys, since Humphreys’ work is based upon that of Barnes.
            The first point made by scientists is that Barnes used an outdated model
            in his analysis of the Earth’s interior (Matson 2002). By using an
            outdated model, any assumptions Barnes made become invalid. Second, by
            using McDonald’s and Gunst’s data, Barnes only analyzed the dipole
            component of the magnetic field, which is not an accurate measurement of
            the overall strength of the Earth’s magnetic field (Matson 2002).
            Third, scientists show that the data used by Barnes more easily fits a
            linear curve than an exponential one, and Barnes chose an exponential
            curve based on incorrect assumptions (Thompson 1997).

            The scientific answer for the apparent decay of the magnetic field
            was given by Dr. Walter Elsasser, a physicist at the University of Utah.
            According to Dr. Elsasser, Earth’s magnetic field is generated by a
            dynamo within the Earth’s core (Matson 2002). This dynamo is driven by
            an unknown energy source, but the subsequent fluid movement within the
            core generates the magnetic field around the Earth (Matson 2002).

            —–

            h. The methods used to date rocks and fossils do not appear to be reliable.

            If I were to point out every aspect of every argument you are using that “does not appear to be reliable” I would be here all week.
            Are the alleged uncertainties in rubidium-strontium dating enough to confuse a 4.5 billion year old planet with a 6022 year old planet? Of course not.
            Are the alleged problems with radiocarbon dating, the link WARREN provided contains refutations of his own claim. One problem: this issue was settled so long ago that even the links provided are showing signs of decay.

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

            the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive
            decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in
            rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks,
            hence the variation in 14C content in different coals).

            Why didn’t WARREN find any criticisms of his pet theory before he posted? Because he wasn’t looking for any. He deliberately avoids anything that will challenge his pre-drawn religiously-inspired conclusions. He will claim otherwise, but the evidence is building up.

        • Maybe you could explain why the Bible does not even mention the phases of Venus, the four brightest moons of Jupiter, Saturn’s rings, or the Milky Way being composed of countless stars.

      • MadScientist1023

        Wow. Talk about taking this to a whole new level of stupid. I won’t even bother repeating what you got wrong on the fossils, because I know it will go over your head and you’ll pretend I never said it.

        Dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. No human fossils have been found in the same geological layers in which dinosaurs are found. No modern mammal outside the occasional rodent or modern bird is found in the same geological layer as dinosaurs.No synapsid is found in the same geological layer as a dinosaur. No precambrian creature is found in the same geological layer as a synapsid. How do you explain that? And if you say Neptunism, I’m laughing in your face.

        Did it ever occur to you that modern paleontologists haven’t been the only ones to find dinosaur fossils? That maybe the ancient Chinese might have found fossils, thus resulting in the dragon myth? It’s pretty clear none of them saw actual living dinosaurs, since they didn’t get their biology remotely correct. Are you also proposing that giants, minotaur, and chimera also roamed the Earth once too?

      • Could you mind to explain why we’ve found nothing better of dinosaurs than fosilized bones, while other animals or men who lived on the same epoch are much better conserved?. Better yet, care to explain why the Chinese dragon looks like a hodgepodge of animals?. Just to begin with.

      • Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach

        I’m not going to address your drivel, though I commend those below who have tried to teach you. I read enough posts to see you flagrantly reveling in your ignorance. Nothing you posted is new. Not even a glimmer of original thought. Every single thing you’ve posted has been dismantled a thousand times before. And you admit you have no interest in even considering alternative positions. You have accomplished nothing except to convince a forum full of people that you wallow in stupidity. Begone.

      • MadScientist1023

        There was so much ignorance in that statement, I missed one of your most hilariously deluded statements.

        “There are numerous hard-to-explain examples of intelligent design.”

        Yeah, they’re hard to explain when they’re complete BS! ID is complete pseudoscientific drivel. Nothing about it is remotely scientific. I’ve read more than a few ID arguments. They can all be boiled down into the same couple of arguments:

        1. I can’t understand how this could have evolved, therefore God

        2. Here’s a bunch of numbers that make evolution look impossible, even though these numbers are grossly inaccurate or ignore key aspects of biology

        3. Some flawed analogy to something large like machinery because I don’t understand chemistry

        4. Complete lies about laws of science

        I have asked every IDer I have ever talked to to give me one single testable hypothesis predicted by ID, and every single last one has failed. The “examples” of ID you speak of are hard to explain because it’s all a bunch of verbage written to obscure the fact there is nothing of substance to them.

      • WARREN

        Proposition 3: There are many reasons for believing the Earth once experienced a global flood:
        a. Fossils–It is admitted that fossils rarely form today because a plant or animal must be buried rapidly in sediment before it decays or is eaten. A catastrophic global flood would provide the perfect conditions for the rapid burial and fossilization of the billions of plants and animals which have been turned into fossils.
        b. Marine fossils on land–Marine fossils including those of whales have been found on land, even in mountains, which means the ocean must have once covered the land and/or the mountains were elevated by a break-up of the Earth’s surface, which would have caused a mega-flood.
        https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
        https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/26/baleen-whale-graveyard-fossil-treasure-atacama-chile
        c. Folded strata–In places strata are folded as if the layers were made of soft clay, something which is hard to explain if they were lying on the ground for a long time and become brittle, but easy to explain if they were still moist and pliable when they were deposited by a flood.
        https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/
        d. Flood legends–it appears almost every culture has a tradition of a global flood, something which is not surprising if such legends were based on a real event and were passed down from generation to generation.
        http://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-every-culture-have-tradition-globa
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
        e. Sedimentary rocks–most of the rocks covering the Earth’s surface are sedimentary rocks, and sedimentary rocks are usually formed in water.
        http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/1056
        f. No erosion between layers–If the rock layers had been deposited gradually over millions of years, there should be evidence of erosion, but there isn’t. If the rock layers had been deposited in a short time by a single event, there should be little evidence of erosion between the layers, and that is what we observe.
        https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/no-slow-and-gradual-erosion/
        g. Coal–Nobody disputes that coal is formed from vegetation, but no processes going on today can create the vast coal beds we have around us. A global flood would have provided the conditions for creating these coal beds in a single event.
        http://www.coaleducation.org/q&a/how_coal_formed.htm
        https://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
        h. Ice Age–Scientists blame the ice age(s) on changes in the Earth’s orbit, but questions remain to be answered. A global flood provides a more plausible explanation for a single Ice Age.
        https://theconversation.com/ice-ages-have-been-linked-to-the-earths-wobbly-orbit-but-when-is-the-next-one-70069
        https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/setting-the-stage-for-an-ice-age/
        i. Mount St. Helens–This volcanic eruption and small-scale catastrophe in 1980 created land features such as a mini-Grand Canyon, strata, and hints of coal beds and a petrified forest, all in a short time. It also had a minor cooling effect on the atmosphere. This eruption can then serve as a sort of natural laboratory showing how a major catastrophic global flood could have caused the same features on the Earth’s surface which we see today.
        https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/lasting-lessons-mount-st-helens/
        j. Mars–Some scientists believe Mars, a desert planet, once experienced a global flood. So, why is it so hard for them to believe that Earth, 71% covered by water, also may have experienced a global flood?
        https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/03/09/global-flood-on-mars-where-did-the-water-go/

        • ThaneOfDrones

          a. This has been refuted so thoroughly that I won’t even bother.

          b. is adequately addressed by plate tectonics.

          c. Adequately explained by plate tectonics.

          d. You are repeating yourself. You have also not explained how all those cultures could have passed down their flood stories since all but one of them would have been wiped out by Noah’s flood.

          e. So what? Geology has no problem explaining this. Some sedimentary rocks are interspersed with layers of volcanic rock, which can be radioisotocially dated.

          f. Your premise is a lie.

          g. Read a geology book.

          h. Read a book. There is clear evidence for multiple ice ages and ice sheets. Once again, real science has no trouble with this one.

          i. But you just said coal couldn’t be formed today. What a total shock it would be if volcanic rock was more highly erosional than bedrock.

          j. You are getting desparate.


          To sum up once again, WARREN, contrary to his own claims, has never gone looking for the real science that explains these phenomena, and explains it much much better than Creationists can. He discards any scientific evidence that does not agree with his big book o fairy tales.

      • WARREN

        Proposition 4: Gradualism as a theory is woefully short of evidence.
        a. Living fossils– are the living things around us today which have ancestors in the fossil record and which haven’t changed their appearance (i.e. shown any evidence of evolution) appreciably in eons. If evolution was as powerful a process as it is often made out to be, there shouldn’t be any examples of living fossils after millions of years, and it is too easy of an answer to say these creatures simply found “their niche” and thus didn’t need to evolve any farther. Actually, every species seems to have found its niche, at least unless threatened by outside forces such as climate change or loss of habitat.
        https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/15-animals-that-are-living-fossils/from-another-era
        b. Punctuated equilibrium or equilibria–was a theory developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to explain why all the branches of the tree of life seem to be missing or invisible. Gould wrote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'” (Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977). Attacking Gould, who was a harsh critic of creationism, doesn’t solve this problem.
        http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674024441
        c. Hopeful Monsters–Before Gould and Eldredge, German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt was also proposing that “small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution.” So he proposed that large mutations, though unseen, could rapidly produce new types, which are referred to as “hopeful monsters,” and not surprisingly this idea earned him a fair amount of scorn.
        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster
        d. Many other scientists who have questioned gradualism–Gould, Eldredge and Goldschmidt were far from being the only non-creationist scientists who have found fault with gradualism or evolution in general.
        https://www.spectator.co.uk/2010/09/scientists-in-hiding/
        https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
        e. Transitional fossils–One would think that if gradualism was factual, there should be a plethora of intermediate or transitional fossils found throughout the fossil record. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the relatively few “transitional fossils” which exist suffer from the fact they are all “snapshots” rather than “moving pictures.” By that I mean we can’t tell by looking at a fossil what, if anything, came before or what came after because they are like still photos. Evolution in these cases can occur only in the minds of the researchers. As an example, Berkley lists a hippo and a whale as “relatives” but admits there are no fossils showing any kind of link. What gradualism really needs are some series of fossils showing the gradual evolution of one form of life into another, but these motion pictures seem to be missing.
        https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
        f. Micro vs macro evolution–All scientists, evolutionist and non-evolutionist, believe changes in living things do occur. The question is how much change can we actually observe. For example, we see a wide variety of dogs including doglike animals such as wolves and foxes (which can interbreed with dogs). This would be a case of micro-evolution. However, we don’t see any example of an animal that we could consider a part dog on its way to evolving into something that isn’t a dog, which would be an example of macro or Darwinian evolution. Berkley admits that while micro-evolution “can be observed over short periods of time,” it is not “easy to ‘see’ macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.”
        https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog
        g. Genetics–Recombination or shuffling of genes can result in variety within kinds of organisms but nothing that could be considered an evolutionary advancement, while mutations in genes which are big enough to make a difference are almost always harmful. The rare “beneficial” mutations usually have a downside and while they may in some cases be helpful, even beneficial mutations don’t add any useful information to a genome. Genetic information can be lost, as in the cases of blind cavefish and wingless beetles, but there appears to be no way previously unknown information can be added to genes. One attempt by evolutionists to explain this problem (below) refers to “jumping genes” or gene duplication, but that sounds like lateral evolution or micro evolution and not upward evolution or macro evolution.
        https://creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution
        https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution9.htm
        h. The Cambrian Explosion–According to the Royal Museum Ontario, the Cambrian Explosion, as seen at Canada’s Burgess Shale, “refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains.” Notice the phrases “sudden appearance” and “complex animals.” There also doesn’t appear to be much among these fossils which could be considered links between the various types of complex animals there or links to any less-complex ancestors in lower layers.
        http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php
        http://www.icr.org/article/burgess-shale-complex-life
        i. Extraterrestrials–There are billions of stars and planets in the Milky Way galaxy, many thought to be almost as old as the universe itself, seemingly giving these old planets a huge head start in evolution. So why do we have no evidence that any extraterrestrials have evolved on any other planet or, UFO’s not withstanding, no evidence they have been traveling through the cosmos?
        https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/3/17522810/aliens-fermi-paradox-drake-equation

      • WARREN

        Proposition 5: There are numerous examples of intelligent design in nature which are hard-to-explain if they are viewed as the result of unguided, random processes. Actually, because intelligent scientists have been trying without success for decades to create life in the laboratory, every living thing might be seen as an example of intelligent design by virtue of the fact it is actually alive. Nevertheless, here are five of my favorite intelligence design examples:
        a. The biological cell–We have come a long way in our understanding of the biological cell from the early days when cells were viewed as empty spaces or gas bubbles. Now cells can be described thusly: “Cells have libraries, translation services, maintenance systems, waste disposal systems, internal and external communication networks, food location devices, food processing plants, power plants, transportation systems, and all sorts of different production industries. And on top of this, it has an automated self-replication system.” And we’re only talking about single cells.
        http://www.biologyreference.com/Gr-Hi/History-of-Biology-Cell-Theory-and-Cell-Structure.html
        https://creation.com/biblical-biology
        b. The universe–on the opposite end of the spectrum is our universe, which scientists now admit has properties which “are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and–in this universe, anyway–life as we know it would not exist.” So scientists have invented the multiverse, the fanciful idea that there are an almost infinite number of universes, and lucky for us, we just happen to have found one where the law of averages worked out just right for us. As one scientist, who was quoted by Discover magazine, said, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
        http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
        c. Monarch butterfly migration–It is amazing enough that any migratory animal can find its way back home after a long journey. In the case of monarch butterflies, it is even more amazing because it may take them four or five generations to make the trip from Mexico to Canada and back again. So the butterflies returning to Mexico are not the same animals which left Mexico. How are these insects able to pass on the necessary navigation information from generation to generation while in transit?
        https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/monarch-butterflies-may-take-five-generations-migrate-us-6C10910055
        d. Bombardier beetles–These clever bugs “produce an internal chemical explosion in their abdomen and then expel a jet of boiling, irritating liquid toward their attackers.” How do they do this without injuring themselves unless they were designed that way? Of course, one can invent stories to try to explain how such a creature could gradually evolve, but such stories are only speculate since we don’t have any fossils to demonstrate such an evolution.
        http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-bombardier-beetles-produce-defensive-spray-0430
        e. African termite mounds–“Termites in Zimbabwe build gigantic mounds inside of which they farm a fungus that is their primary food source. The fungus must be kept at exactly 87 degrees F, while the temperatures outside range from 35 degrees F at night to 104 degrees F during the day. The termites achieve this remarkable feat by constantly opening and closing a series of heating and cooling vents throughout the mound over the course of the day. With a system of carefully adjusted convection currents, air is sucked in at the lower part of the mound, down into enclosures with muddy walls, and up through a channel to the peak of the termite mound. The industrious termites constantly dig new vents and plug up old ones in order to regulate the temperature.” This ingenious system of maintaining the desired temperature inspired human architects to incorporate a similar system into their design of an office building in Harare, Zimbabwe, a building called the Eastgate Centre.
        https://inhabitat.com/building-modelled-on-termites-eastgate-centre-in-zimbabwe/

        It is bad enough that so many students in elementary schools, middle schools and high schools are being indoctrinated into a one-sided presentation of origins. The same is true, of course, at the university level, even in many Christian colleges (as happened to me). But worse is that evolution offers individuals no hope for the future. Much better is the Bible’s message, as is expressed in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

        Good-bye.

      • WARREN

        Proposition 4: Gradualism as a theory is woefully short of evidence.
        a. Living fossils– are the living things around us today which have ancestors in the fossil record and which haven’t changed their appearance (i.e. shown any evidence of evolution) appreciably in eons. If evolution was as powerful a process as it is often made out to be, there shouldn’t be any examples of living fossils after millions of years, and it is too easy of an answer to say these creatures simply found “their niche” and thus didn’t need to evolve any farther. Actually, every species seems to have found its niche, at least unless threatened by outside forces such as climate change or loss of habitat.
        https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/15-animals-that-are-living-fossils/from-another-era
        b. Punctuated equilibrium or equilibria–was a theory developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to explain why all the branches of the tree of life seem to be missing or invisible. Gould wrote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'” (Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977). Attacking Gould, who was a harsh critic of creationism, doesn’t solve this problem.
        http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674024441
        c. Hopeful Monsters–Before Gould and Eldredge, German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt was also proposing that “small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution.” So he proposed that large mutations, though unseen, could rapidly produce new types, which are referred to as “hopeful monsters,” and not surprisingly this idea earned him a fair amount of scorn.
        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster
        d. Many other scientists who have questioned gradualism–Gould, Eldredge and Goldschmidt were far from being the only non-creationist scientists who have found fault with gradualism or evolution in general.
        https://www.spectator.co.uk/2010/09/scientists-in-hiding/
        https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
        e. Transitional fossils–One would think that if gradualism was factual, there should be a plethora of intermediate or transitional fossils found throughout the fossil record. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the relatively few “transitional fossils” which exist suffer from the fact they are all “snapshots” rather than “moving pictures.” By that I mean we can’t tell by looking at a fossil what, if anything, came before or what came after because they are like still photos. Evolution in these cases can occur only in the minds of the researchers. As an example, Berkley lists a hippo and a whale as “relatives” but admits there are no fossils showing any kind of link. What gradualism really needs are some series of fossils showing the gradual evolution of one form of life into another, but these motion pictures seem to be missing.
        https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
        f. Micro vs macro evolution–All scientists, evolutionist and non-evolutionist, believe changes in living things do occur. The question is how much change can we actually observe. For example, we see a wide variety of dogs including doglike animals such as wolves and foxes (which can interbreed with dogs). This would be a case of micro-evolution. However, we don’t see any example of an animal that we could consider a part dog on its way to evolving into something that isn’t a dog, which would be an example of macro or Darwinian evolution. Berkley admits that while micro-evolution “can be observed over short periods of time,” it is not “easy to ‘see’ macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.”
        https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog
        g. Genetics–Recombination or shuffling of genes can result in variety within kinds of organisms but nothing that could be considered an evolutionary advancement, while mutations in genes which are big enough to make a difference are almost always harmful. The rare “beneficial” mutations usually have a downside and while they may in some cases be helpful, even beneficial mutations don’t add any useful information to a genome. Genetic information can be lost, as in the cases of blind cavefish and wingless beetles, but there appears to be no way previously unknown information can be added to genes. One attempt by evolutionists to explain this problem (below) refers to “jumping genes” or gene duplication, but that sounds like lateral evolution or micro evolution and not upward evolution or macro evolution.
        https://creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution
        https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution9.htm
        h. The Cambrian Explosion–According to the Royal Museum Ontario, the Cambrian Explosion, as seen at Canada’s Burgess Shale, “refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains.” Notice the phrases “sudden appearance” and “complex animals.” There also doesn’t appear to be much among these fossils which could be considered links between the various types of complex animals there or links to any less-complex ancestors in lower layers.
        http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php
        http://www.icr.org/article/burgess-shale-complex-life
        i. Extraterrestrials–There are billions of stars and planets in the Milky Way galaxy, many thought to be almost as old as the universe itself, seemingly giving these old planets a huge head start in evolution. So why do we have no evidence that any extraterrestrials have evolved on any other planet or, UFO’s not withstanding, no evidence they have been traveling through the cosmos?
        https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/3/17522810/aliens-fermi-paradox-drake-equation

      • WARREN

        Proposition 5: There are numerous examples of intelligent design in nature which are hard-to-explain if they are viewed as the result of unguided, random processes. Actually, because intelligent scientists have been trying without success for decades to create life in the laboratory, every living thing might be seen as an example of intelligent design by virtue of the fact it is actually alive. Nevertheless, here are five of my favorite intelligence design examples:
        a. The biological cell–We have come a long way in our understanding of the biological cell from the early days when cells were viewed as empty spaces or gas bubbles. Now cells can be described thusly: “Cells have libraries, translation services, maintenance systems, waste disposal systems, internal and external communication networks, food location devices, food processing plants, power plants, transportation systems, and all sorts of different production industries. And on top of this, it has an automated self-replication system.” And we’re only talking about single cells.
        http://www.biologyreference.com/Gr-Hi/History-of-Biology-Cell-Theory-and-Cell-Structure.html
        https://creation.com/biblical-biology
        b. The universe–on the opposite end of the spectrum is our universe, which scientists now admit has properties which “are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and–in this universe, anyway–life as we know it would not exist.” So scientists have invented the multiverse, the fanciful idea that there are an almost infinite number of universes, and lucky for us, we just happen to have found one where the law of averages worked out just right for us. As one scientist, who was quoted by Discover magazine, said, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
        http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
        c. Monarch butterfly migration–It is amazing enough that any migratory animal can find its way back home after a long journey. In the case of monarch butterflies, it is even more amazing because it may take them four or five generations to make the trip from Mexico to Canada and back again. So the butterflies returning to Mexico are not the same animals which left Mexico. How are these insects able to pass on the necessary navigation information from generation to generation while in transit?
        https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/monarch-butterflies-may-take-five-generations-migrate-us-6C10910055
        d. Bombardier beetles–These clever bugs “produce an internal chemical explosion in their abdomen and then expel a jet of boiling, irritating liquid toward their attackers.” How do they do this without injuring themselves unless they were designed that way? Of course, one can invent stories to try to explain how such a creature could gradually evolve, but such stories are only speculative since we don’t have any fossils to demonstrate such an evolution.
        http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-bombardier-beetles-produce-defensive-spray-0430
        e. African termite mounds–“Termites in Zimbabwe build gigantic mounds inside of which they farm a fungus that is their primary food source. The fungus must be kept at exactly 87 degrees F, while the temperatures outside range from 35 degrees F at night to 104 degrees F during the day. The termites achieve this remarkable feat by constantly opening and closing a series of heating and cooling vents throughout the mound over the course of the day. With a system of carefully adjusted convection currents, air is sucked in at the lower part of the mound, down into enclosures with muddy walls, and up through a channel to the peak of the termite mound. The industrious termites constantly dig new vents and plug up old ones in order to regulate the temperature.” This ingenious system of maintaining the desired temperature inspired human architects to incorporate a similar system into their design of an office building in Harare, Zimbabwe, a building called the Eastgate Centre.
        https://inhabitat.com/building-modelled-on-termites-eastgate-centre-in-zimbabwe/

        It is bad enough that so many students in elementary schools, middle schools and high schools are being indoctrinated into a one-sided presentation of origins. The same is true, of course, at the university level, even in many Christian colleges (as happened to me). But worse is that evolution offers individuals no hope for the future. Much better is the Bible’s message, as is expressed in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

        Good-bye.

        • MadScientist1023

          Translation:

          I don’t know how to science…Therefore God.

          I’m leaving now because I’ve been thoroughly beaten.

    • Ann Kah

      – We call it evolution, not “Darwinism”. That’s a sign of your Christian university disdain for the subject.
      – We have entire libraries and museums crammed with millions of bits of “woefully lacking” evidence.
      – “Living fossils”? Things have no need to evolve if their environment suits them as they are.
      – Why do you now say “billions of fossils” when you complained a second ago about the “woefully lacking” evidence.
      – There is nothing “easy” (or believable, or plausible, or possible) about a global flood. Do the math.
      – There have been so many generations of evolution that of course there are blanks in the record, at least so far. Again, do the math.
      – I really want a reference for that “Oxford scientists ‘admitted'” thing, because that is not only counter to the opinions of many scientists, but is ultimately unknowable anyway as nobody can prove a negative. And the word “admitted” is a loaded choice of verb, suggesting that they did something wrong in the first place.

      I’ll listen to evidence for your preferred position. Do you have any? No, not arguments; evidence.

  • Paul Price

    It’s very sad to see someone who was on the right track (seemingly) get so completely derailed. I also watched the Ham-Nye debate and was not particularly happy with either debater, honestly. But did that cause me to jettison my worldview? Certainly not. One thing conspicuously absent from this article is any mention at all of any *rational reasons* why he suddenly reversed his thought and decided that creation science is fake / false, whereas before he accepted it as good science. That’s a strong clue he probably did not have a firm grasp on the actual science to begin with. I recommend creation dot com as a resource in this area.

    • WARREN

      Creation Ministries International is indeed a good resource along with the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis (among many others) which provide solid reasons for accepting the leading alternate explanation for origins. It is sad that diehard evolutionists so frequently respond to serious questions with such contempt and ridicule.

      • Sol III

        It is really sad that creationists come to secular websites and think they can convert science-minded people to bronze age superstition. But I’ll tell you what. If you can convince the National Academy of Science that you’re correct on a single scientific position that the IRC or AIG hold, I’ll personally apologize and pay for your plane ticket to receive the Nobel prize.

        • Paul Price

          The NAS is your god, apparently. You’ve been brainwashed to believe that mainstream (man-made) organizations, and their pronouncements, are the definition of “science”. TRUE science is about following sound arguments and evidence where it leads, not appealing to supposed authority figures. Your mind is already made up about “bronze age superstition” so obviously discussing it with you is a waste of time!

          • ThaneOfDrones

            Scientists are not “authority figures.” They are expertise figures. They present their data, they describe their methods. Their expertise can be verified by checking their predictions.

          • Sol III

            If you knew how to follow a sound argument, we wouldn’t be having this argument.

            And a god concept must be pretty trivial and inconsequential if it’s the equivalent of a human having confidence in the work of other humans….so what’s all the fuss about?!

            And yes, you’re right, my mind is firmly made up about silly bronze age superstitions so don’t waste my time or yours. The fact that you have so much ‘faith’ in the writings of bronze age peoples, as opposed to modern day scientists, tells me everything I need to know.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            The NAS is your god, apparently. You’ve been brainwashed to believe…

            Your projection is obvious. Typical creationist, you project your own worst vices onto others and employ it as a criticism without for a moment considering you slander your damn self as you do it.

          • Gehennah

            I find it funny, because that is exactly what you do.

            Scientists on the other hand, the ones doing actual science have allowed the evidence to lead them, that is why science doesn’t tend to agree with the Bible.

            And hell, your own sources, they have statements of faith that outright say that if it doesn’t agree with the Bible, then it is automatically wrong. So way to go hypocrite.

          • Ann Kah

            “TRUE science is about following sound arguments and evidence where it leads”.

            In any advanced field of science, the “authority figures” very sensibly discuss their work with other authority figures. We don’t consider scientists as gurus, isolated on their mountain tops. We have respect for senior scientists when they have previously shown excellence in the field, and cooperation among scientists is a much better way to get the full picture. What we try to leave out of this is any kind of hero worship. A thing is not correct because “X” says it is; it is considered to be a better explanation because “X” and his team found new evidence for it.

      • skinnercitycyclist

        It is sad that diehard evolutionists so frequently respond to serious questions with such contempt and ridicule.

        We ridicule the ridiculous, yes. The evidence for natural selection is about as clear as anything in science, and is much better understood than that surrounding gravity, for instance. But your magic book says nothing about gravity, although I suppose you believe the sun stood still for Moses. Tell me about the “missing day” in history, why don’t you?

        • WARREN

          Just proving what I said.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            You do not really know what the word “proof” means, do you? Tell me whether the sun stood still for Moses, and prove it. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. The evidence of evolution by means of natural selection is there for all to see.

      • ThaneOfDrones

        If you do not wish to be ridiculed, be less ridiculous.

      • Nope, when they assume the Bible to be correct and interpret everything on that basis, they lose all credibility. Even the very scientific assumptions are tested -look for fine structure constant-.

      • Ann Kah

        What are your educational achievements in the sciences? That’s not meant to be snarky. It’s necessary for us to know at what level we have to explain things to you. And if the answer is “Not much”, we won’t even try, because although the basic principles of evolution are easy to understand, the details are not.

    • Bill Ludlow

      Creationsciencefiction dot com is much better.

    • Sol III

      Luke, the author said, “In my case, even by marginally raising my scientific literacy, the creationist dogma fell apart under its own weight.”

      Asked. Answered. That’s a strong clue that you’re perpetuating the exact game Luke was writing about: Trying to promote creation science as something sophisticated when in reality it’s laughably wrong. Not arguably wrong. LAUGHABLY wrong. The immense weight of genuine, sophisticated scientific evidence would boggle your mind. Which is why you won’t learn it.

      • Paul Price

        Not at all answered. That’s just an empty assertion. No scientific evidence or arguments have been mentioned.

        • Sol III

          Please provide even one replicatible piece of evidence of your God claims. When you’ve met your burden of proof, I’m sure Luke and others like him will discuss actual sciencey things with you. Bless your heart…:)

        • ThaneOfDrones

          No scientific evidence or arguments have been mentioned.

          Especially not by you. Since you have nothing of value to contribute, you should remain silent.

    • Gehennah

      The site you recommended isn’t a good source in this area. It is a laughably poor source.

      There is a reason why almost nobody in the scientific community takes creationism, especially YEC, seriously. It is because it isn’t science, and pretty much all of the evidence that we do have contradicts it.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    If anyone is interested in the history of ‘modern’ creationism, I recommend:
    The Creationists
    by Ronald L. Numbers
    expanded edition, 2006
    Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674023390

    Many Protestant creationists trace their creation science to The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb & Morris, but they borrowed most of their ideas from the earlier work of George MacCready Price. Price’s Seventh Day Adventist affiliation made him a heretic to non-SDA folk.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    These half-billion-year-old creatures were animals—but unlike any known today
    By Colin Barras; Aug. 8, 2018 , 7:00 AM
    doi:10.1126/science.aav0347

  • ThaneOfDrones
  • ThaneOfDrones
  • ThaneOfDrones

    This was made in a comment which is somehow not active, which keeps me from responding in the proper place. c. Monarch butterfly migration–It is
    amazing enough that any migratory animal can find its way back home
    after a long journey. In the case of monarch butterflies, it is even
    more amazing because it may take them four or five generations to make
    the trip from Mexico to Canada and back again. So the butterflies
    returning to Mexico are not the same animals which left Mexico. How are
    these insects able to pass on the necessary navigation information from
    generation to generation while in transit?

    Option 1: Sit dumb-struck at God’s work

    Option 2: Get off your buttocks and actually do some research.

    Thankfully, there are people who choose option 2.

    Mystery
    solved: How monarch butterflies navigate from Canada to Mexico each
    year

    Dr
    Shlizerman, who is an assistant professor at the University of
    Washington in the US, said: “Their compass integrates two pieces of
    information – the time of day and the sun’s position on the horizon – to
    find the southerly direction.

    • WARREN

      The comments to which this reply is addressed were either accidentally or (I would hate to think) purposely deleted (which would be censorship), but I have republished them below.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    WARREN, “a month ago”: I have gone the opposite direction as Mr. Douglas, from a college
    student indoctrinated in and accepting of Darwinism (at a Christian
    university, no less) to one who finds actual scientific evidence for the
    theory of evolution to be woefully lacking.

    WARREN is obviously lying. Science has much better explanations than creationism, but WARREN either is not aware of the scientific explanations or rejects them for incompatibility with his religious dogma. Dishonesty is not a good approach to science.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    WARREN: g. Genetics–Recombination or shuffling of genes can result in variety
    within kinds of organisms but nothing that could be considered an
    evolutionary advancement, while mutations in genes which are big enough
    to make a difference are almost always harmful.

    He complains that most mutations are not big enough, then he rejects gradualism. He wants to have his cake and roll around on the floor in it as well.

    The rare “beneficial”
    mutations usually have a downside and while they may in some cases be
    helpful, even beneficial mutations don’t add any useful information to a
    genome.

    ‘Scuse me, but why do beneficial mutations “not add any useful information”? The things you say do not even make sense.

    Genetic information can be lost, as in the cases of blind
    cavefish and wingless beetles, but there appears to be no way previously
    unknown information can be added to genes. One attempt by evolutionists
    to explain this problem (below) refers to “jumping genes” or gene
    duplication, but that sounds like lateral evolution or micro evolution
    and not upward evolution or macro evolution.

    “Jumping genes” and gene duplication are not obscure, unsuccessful attempts at explanations, they are phenomena which are actually observed in the world. And WARREN’s description of them is pathetically inadequate.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    WARREN: It is bad enough that so many students in elementary schools, middle
    schools and high schools are being indoctrinated into a one-sided
    presentation of origins.

    How ironic to state that in a comment which cannot be replied to.