See me speak on distant starlight!

On September 27, I went to the Creation and Earth History Museum for their annual Museum Day. It featured several speakers like Eric Hovind. One speaker was Bill Morgan. After his presentation of creation, I went to ask him what his thoughts were on the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Model of the flood. He said that he didn't know what it was. So I explained it to him. That led to an in-depth discussion regarding specific topics in Creation science. Near the end of the conversation, Bill asked me to come and speak to his creation group at the church he attends. I was shocked that I would be asked to speak about creation and evolution. After getting permission from my mom, I told Bill that I would love to speak to his group.

On November 1, I will be speaking at Calvary Chapel WestGrove California as a guest speaker. This event will be hosted by Bill's class, "Creation Science Fellowship". The topic will be "What About Distant Starlight?" This is a free event (unless you want to eat pizza dinner, which is $1 a slice :-) ). Please consider coming to learn about all of the different theories about distant starlight, and what the evolutionists believe about the origin of stars.

Please Share.

A New Solution to Distant Starlight

Fellow Young Earth Creationists are perplexed as how starlight from billions of light years away could reach earth within the same day they were created. In this article, I propose an entirely new solution that is both biblical and scientific. I call this theory, “The Star Growth Theory”. In a nutshell, God created the stars and planets on creation week. When God made the stars, He caused them to supernaturally “grow”. This rapid growth would involve not only the appearance of the star, but also of the star’s light. As the star itself grew, the light beams also grew by shooting out very quickly. At the same time, God caused the star to move farther away from the earth. When the light arrived at earth, God allowed light to travel at its normal speed.

By having the star grow and change while the light shoots out, this theory explains why we see stars slowly change. Because the star was changing rapidly while the beam of light was travelling rapidly, there were different images of the star spread out throughout this new beam of light. Now that the light beam has been allowed to travel at its normal speed, and because different images of the star are fixed in the long beam of light, when we see the slow change of stars, we are really seeing the rapid growth of those stars on day four confined to the slow (by comparison), normal speed of light.

By having the star move farther away from earth while the star’s light shoots out, this explains the redshift effect we see in stars.

By having the beam of light travel quickly on one day, this theory explains the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is a mystery for both creationists and evolutionists. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is radiation across the entire universe that is at a uniform temperature. In order for this to be so, light from one end has the travel to the other end of the universe to even out the temperature. Cosmic Evolution (i.e. the big bang) can’t explain this, because not even in 14 billion years can light travel from one end of the universe to the other with the normal speed of light. If beams of light traveled faster on day four, this could happen on the same day.

Some may object that the stars are billions of years old since they grew. But that isn’t true. Growth and age are two different things. When God created the plants, He caused them to be “brought forth” (Genesis 1:12), indicating the rapid growth of plants of day four, rather than creation from nothing. Were the plants hundreds of years old? No, they were one day old. Growth and age are different. While the stars did grow rapidly, their true age was only one day old.

So that’s my theory in a nutshell - the stars grew supernaturally on day four. So far as I have researched, this theory explains the Cosmological mysteries that we observe in the universe today, and is within the boundaries of Scripture.

The Biblical Age of the Earth

Many Christians have fallen prey to the dangerous teaching of evolution and millions of years. It is for this reason that many Christians do not research what the Bible REALLY says about the age of the earth. But on a more subtle level, Christians, instead of researching the Bible for themselves, accept the common Young Earth Creationist date of creation at 4004 BC. While this is very close to the true age of the earth, that figure was not devised from the Bible. It comes from Archbishop James Ussher who took into account the fictitious Septuagint when coming up with that date. In this article, you will learn what the exact age of the earth really is according to the King James Bible.

1. From Creation to Noah = 1,056 years.

Genesis 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” = 130 years.

Genesis 5:6, “And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:” = 105 years.

Genesis 5:9, “And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:” = 90 years.

Genesis 5:12, “And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:” = 70 years.

Genesis 5:15, “And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:” = 65 years.

Genesis 5:18, “And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:” = 162 years.

Genesis 5:21, “And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:” = 65 years.

Genesis 5:25, “And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:” = 187 years.

Genesis 5:28-29, “And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.” = 182 years.

By adding up these dates, we get 130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182 years from the creation of the world to the birth of Noah. By adding that up, we get 1,056 years from creation to Noah.

From this figure, we can know when the Flood happened, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” (Genesis 7:11). From this, we can know that 1,056+600 years occurred between Creation and the Flood. That is a total of 1,656 years from Creation to the Flood.

2. From Noah to Abraham = 890 years.

Genesis 5:32, “And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” = 500 years.

Genesis 11:10, “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:” = 100 years.

Genesis 11:12, “And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:” = 35 years.

Genesis 11:14, “And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:” = 30 years.

Genesis 11:16, “And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:” = 34 years.

Genesis 11:18, “And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:” = 30 years.

Genesis 11:20, “And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:” = 32 years.

Genesis 11:22, “And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:” = 30 years.

Genesis 11:24, “And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:” = 29 years.

Genesis 11:26, “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” = 70 years.

By adding up these dates, we get 500+100+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70 years from the birth of Noah to the birth of Abraham. By adding that up, we get 890 years from Noah to Abraham.

3. From Abraham to the Exodus = 505 years.

Genesis 12:4 & 7, “So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran...And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.” = 75 years.

Galatians 3:16-17, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” = 430 years.

Genesis 19:1 & 20:1, “In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai...And God spake all these words, saying,”

Since “the law” of Moses (Galatians 3:17) was given 430 years after God made His promise with Abraham, and since there wasn’t that much time between the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments (“Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai...And God spake all these words, saying,” ~ Genesis 19:1 & 20:1), it was 430 from the promise of Abraham to the Exodus. By adding up these dates, we get 75+430 years from the birth of Abraham to the Exodus from Egypt. By adding that up, we get 505 years from Abraham to the Exodus.

4. From the Exodus to Solomon’s Reign = 480 years.

1 Kings 6:1, “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.” = 480 years.

That makes it 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s reign.

5. From Solomon’s Reign to Babylon = 420 years.

1 Kings 6:1 & 11:42-43, “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD...And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.” = 36 years.

1 Kings 14:21 & 2 Chronicles 12:16, “And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess...And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Abijah his son reigned in his stead.” = 17 years.

2 Chronicles 13:1-2, “Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.” = 3 years.

2 Chronicles 14:1 & 1 Kings 15:9-10, “So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years...And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.” = 41 years.

1 Kings 15:24 &  22:42, “And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead...Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi.” = 25 years.

1 Kings 22:50 & 2 Kings 8:16-16, “And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead...And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.” = 8 years.

2 Kings 8:24 & 8:26, “And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead...Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.” = 1 year.

2 Kings 11:1-2 & 11:4 & 12:1, “And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons which were slain; and they hid him, even him and his nurse, in the bedchamber from Athaliah, so that he was not slain...And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the LORD, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the LORD, and shewed them the king’s son...In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba.” = 47 years.

2 Chronicles 24:24 & 24:27-25:1, “For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men, and the LORD delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers. So they executed judgment against Joash...Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story of the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.” = 29 years.

2 Chronicles 26:1 & 26:3, “Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah...Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Jecoliah of Jerusalem.” = 52 years.

2 Chronicles 26:23-27:1, “So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead. Jotham was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Jerushah, the daughter of Zadok.” = 16 years.

2 Chronicles 27:9-28:1, “And Jotham slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:” = 16 years.

2 Chronicles 28:27-29:1, “And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead. Hezekiah began to reign when he was five and twenty years old, and he reigned nine and twenty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Abijah, the daughter of Zechariah.” = 29 years.

2 Chronicles 32:33-33:1, “And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead. Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem:” = 55 years.

2 Chronicles 33:20-21, “So Manasseh slept with his fathers, and they buried him in his own house: and Amon his son reigned in his stead. Amon was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years in Jerusalem.” = 2 years.

2 Chronicles 33:25-34:1, “But the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem one and thirty years.” = 31 years.

2 Chronicles 36:1-2, “Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father’s stead in Jerusalem. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem.“ = 3 months.

2 Kings 23:34 & 23:36, “And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there...Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah.” = 11 years

2 Kings 24:6 & 24:8 & 24:10-11 & 24:14, “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead...Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem...At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it...And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.” = 3 months

From this figure, we can know that 36+17+3+41+25+8+1+47+29+52+16+16+29+55+2+31+11+0.5 years occurred between Solomon’s Reign and the exile to Babylon. That is a total of 420 years (419.5) from Solomon to Babylon.

6. From Babylon to Cyrus = 70 years.

Jeremiah 29:10 & 2 Chronicles 36:21-23, “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place....To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.” = 70 years

From this figure, we can know that 70 years occurred between the exile to Babylon and the commandment by Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem.

7. From Cyrus to Christ = 483 years.
Daniel 9:25-26 says, "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." According to the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary, a week can mean a period of seven years when it has to do with prophecy. This prophecy speaks of 69 "weeks" between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the death of Christ. According to the Bible, Jesus died on Thursday day, since He was already risen on Sunday morning and said He would spend three days and three nights dead (Matthew 12:40). Luke 3:23 says that Jesus began His public ministry about thirty years old. And since our entire A.D. calendar system is based from the birth of Jesus (and acknowledged to be about five years off), we should expect Jesus' death around A.D. 30. But we can be more precise with some clues found in scripture. Jesus' Last Supper (at night) was the night of the Passover, "And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?" (Mark 14:14). The passover according to scripture is Abib 14 (the Jewish calendar). Jesus was eating the Last Supper on Wednesday night, the beginning of Abib 14 (since the Biblical day according to Genesis 1 is sunset to sunset, not midnight to midnight). The Jewish leaders took Jesus and caused Him to be crucified in the following morning (Thursday morning), "And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate." (Mark 15:1). So, if we can find out what year(s) around A.D. 30 that had the Jewish Abib 14 occurring from Wednesday night to Thursday morning, we can figure out when Jesus died. According to this paper, the only possible Thursday morning which falls on Abib 14 happened in A.D. 27. Thus, Jesus died in A.D. 27.

The Age of the Earth

Since we now have enough dates that we need, we can come up with an exact age of the earth according to the Bible. From the above figures, we can know that 1056+890+505+480+420+70+483 years occurred between the Creation to A.D. 27. This places the creation of the world at 3877 BC. That means that now in 2017 (yes, this part will be updated every year), the earth is about 5,894 years old.

The earth is barely 5,900 years old. This means that the flood happened 4,237 years ago (or about 4200 years ago) in 2221 B.C.. This also means that the date given by Ussher is 127 years off from the biblical age of the earth. The earth will be exactly 6,000 years old in 2123 A.D.

Atheist tells me I'm lying about evolution.

Just today, I was debating atheist Shane Killian online about evolution. I came across one of his videos and then commented on it. He then replied to me (his comments are in bold). (You can see his video below.)

I said, “It’s been a while since I’ve come across this video, and I still can’t believe how ridiculous it is. First of all, the fly is NOT an example of macro-evolution. The fly is still of the same kind, making this micro-evolution, something with which I have no problem with. Secondly, the knowledge of how to study diseases comes not from our understanding of the fly’s “evolution”, but of its genetics. Genetic similarity is evidence of a common designer knowing that we would fall into sin, and ultimately disease. Since there are similar creatures, God has given us the ability to take one step closer to curing these diseases. Thirdly, what does the stair vs tree illustration have to do with anything regarding micro/macro-evolution? I’m sorry, but I didn’t seem to catch it. Fourthly, you never showed an example of how one kind becomes two due to not being able to bring forth offspring. Fifthly, the iguana is still the same kind of animal, making this yet another case of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Sixth, the lizard is still the same kind of animal, making this another clear example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Lastly, the fish is still the same kind of fish, making this another clear example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Has evolution been observed? Micro-evolution has been, but not macro-evolution. Fail :-)”

He replied, ““The fly is still of the same kind” Define “kind.” “Genetic similarity is evidence of a common designer” Then why does it follow a nested hierarchy and not a design pattern? “Fourthly, you never showed an example of how one kind becomes two due to not being able to bring forth offspring.” Ring species show this quite well. “Fifthly, the iguana is still the same kind of animal” It made a whole new body part, something creationists say is impossible. “Lastly, the fish is still the same kind of fish” Again, define “kind.” “Micro-evolution has been, but not macro-evolution. Fail” There is NO micro- or macro-evolution; there’s just evolution. The fail is YOURS. This creationist bleating about micro- vs. macro-evolution is like saying, “A micro-fall of two inches will do you no harm, but a macro-fall of 2 miles is supposed to kill you? How is that possible?””

I responded, “First of all, two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring. Secondly, by “nested hierarchy” do you mean a phylogeny? Thirdly, could you show me an example of ring species? Fourthly, Dr. David Menton said about the lizards, “The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” (Dr. David Menton, “Island Evolves Lizards” (AiG, 2009)). Lastly, your analogy is a strawman to discourage my correct use of the micro/macro distinction. Micro-evolution is variation within a kind, while macro-evolution is a change of kinds (which I clearly defined above). I agree with micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. All you showed in your video are examples of micro-evolution.”

He then responded, ““First of all, two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring.” So, you mean “species.” But I gave examples of speciation and you STILL said they were the same kind! “Secondly, by “nested hierarchy” do you mean a phylogeny?” No, the nested hierarchy is evidence FOR phylogeny. A nested hierarchy is a distinct concept in Information Theory and means only one thing: the information comes from common sources. “Fourthly, Dr. David Menton” is a lying creationist like you. There IS NO SUCH VALVE IN THE ANCESTRAL POPULATION. “Lastly, your analogy is a strawman to discourage my correct use of the micro/macro distinction” No, the micro-macro distinction IS A CREATIONIST LIE. Plain and simple. There is no micro- or macro-evolution, there’s just evolution. In order for there to be a distinction, you need some kind of mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over time. What mechanism would that be? “All you showed in your video are examples of micro-evolution.” Except you JUST AGREED that if they can’t produce fertile offspring they’re different kinds! AND I SHOWED THAT!!! ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.”

I then replied, “First of all, you didn’t give one example where there has been a change in kinds. Evolutionists are in disagreement of what a species is. Since you have defined it for me as the same as a kind, I’ll go with your terminology if that means anything to you. Since evolutionists cannot agree on what a species is, it is very likely that the animals you referenced are different species under someone else’s definition. Thus, you need to prove that these are indeed different species - that they cannot bring forth with the parent species. Secondly, hierarchy is an evolutionary concept - a concept that assumes evolution to be true. IF macro-evolution were true, nested hierarchy would be quite useful, but you have not shown that to be the case. Since I accept micro-evolution, I would accept a sort of hierarchy that can only trace back from different sub-species to individual species when they were created by God 6,000 years ago. Thirdly, you just committed an ad hominem attack on Dr. David Menton without addressing what he said. And before you call me a liar, could you please re-read why he said? Lastly, you are assuming that unlimited change is normal, so there must be for me a mechanism to stop this unlimited change. You have not shown this to be the case. You have not yet proved that the mechanisms that we know cause micro-evolution can reach to macro-evolution in an unlimited way. Thus, you have not yet demonstrably shown that unlimited change is natural since you haven’t shown unlimited change (i.e. macro-evolution). By the way, could you just google “micro-evolution” and see if any evolutionists use that term? Anyways, you still have not shown ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When are you going to show me some? I already defined what a kind is for you.”

He then replied, ““First of all, you didn’t give one example where there has been a change in kinds.” Yes, I did: you said that if they can’t produce offspring with each other they’re different kinds. I showed that. “Evolutionists are in disagreement of what a species is.” LIE. A species is a population that can maintain long-term fertile offspring under natural conditions. “Since evolutionists cannot agree on what a species is” Since they CAN, everything that follows is another LIE. “Thus, you need to prove that these are indeed different species - that they cannot bring forth with the parent species.” No, the PARENT species has nothing to do with it. If the two populations that develop from the parent cannot have fertile offspring with each other, they’re different species. “hierarchy is an evolutionary concept - a concept that assumes evolution to be true.” Nope. You can EASILY tell using Information Theory if a data set is the result of a nested hierarchy. Independently of evolution, the information in our genome does PRECISELY THAT. “Thirdly, you just committed an ad hominem attack on Dr. David Menton without addressing what he said.” No, I pointed out that he LIED about the data. The ancestral population HAS NO SUCH BODY PART. DEAL with it. “And before you call me a liar, could you please re-read why he said?” Yes: he said the ancestral population had a similar body part. THEY DON’T. HE LIED. “By the way, could you just google “micro-evolution” and see if any evolutionists use that term?” They do, but not in the way you do. “Anyways, you still have not shown ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When are you going to show me some? I already defined what a kind is for you.” You defined “kind” as a species. I showed speciation. This challenge HAS BEEN MET. DEAL with it.”

I then responded, “First of all, you did not show a specific example of a change in kind. You may want to reread this conversation. You haven’t given one specific example where one kind of animal had become another kind of animal. If you did, would you so kindly repeat it - with the exact creature? Secondly, check out www.macroevolution.net and look up the definition of “species”. I dare you. Thirdly, you have just changed your definition of species. At first you said it was the same as my definition of a kind, which was “two animals that can bring forth offspring.” Now you are redefining it to “two animals that can bring forth FERTILE offspring”. Until you go back to your first definition of species, I will use the word “kind” again. Lastly, if evolution doesn’t inform hierarchy, could you them show me how it works? Once again, you have given absolutely no scientific evidence for macro-evolution.”

He then replied, ““First of all, you did not show a specific example of a change in kind.” Yes, I did. I showed populations that could no longer reproduce with each other, and I even showed an example of a transitional species in the process of speciating. And we’re not playing the old “repeat it” canard of all lying creationists. It’s a dishonest rhetorical play, nothing more. They’re mentioned in the video and EVERYONE can see it. And why should I care what a pseudoscience site has to say about “macroevolution”? I don’t care about that any more than I care what an anti-vaccination site has to say about toxins. “Thirdly, you have just changed your definition of species.” Nope, never did. “Now you are redefining it to “two animals that can bring forth FERTILE offspring”” It has ALWAYS been that, LIAR. “Lastly, if evolution doesn’t inform hierarchy,” I never said that. I said the nested hierarchy is incredibly strong evidence for common descent. “Once again, you have given absolutely no scientific evidence for macro-evolution.” Only because you’re another creationist LIAR who’d rather stick his head in the sand and cling to his Bronze Age delusion than learn the truth.”

I then responded, “First of all, you are right. Everyone can see the conversation and how you did not present ANY scientific evidence for macro-evolution. So I guess that debate is over. Secondly, the website is PRO-EVOLUTION! But of course, since you don’t care to look into the evidence, you will continue to deny that evolutionists are in disagreement with what a species is. Wanna try again, and go to the website? Thirdly, you said, “‘two animals are of the same kind if they can bring forth offspring.’ So you mean ‘species’” You agreed with that definition that does not include that the offspring must be fertile. So in reality, you are the liar, not me. Lastly, could you explain to me how nested hierarchy proves macro-evolution? Once again, you have shown no scientific evidence for macro-evolution and are now refusing to give me evidence. All of that for everyone to see.”

He then replied, ““Secondly, the website is PRO-EVOLUTION!” The website is PSEUDOSCIENCE! They’re working with a definition of evolution that NO biologist accepts and trying to make out how they’re upending the scientific establishment. NO, THEY AREN’T. But thank you for exposing your cultist thinking: you think of this as being your side versus my side, creationists vs. evolutionists. And so all us “evolutionists” must be on the same side and must agree with each other. (censored). If there are any sides, it’s liars vs. the truth, and you and that site are both on the side of the LIARS. “Lastly, could you explain to me how nested hierarchy proves macro-evolution?” The only way you can have a nested hierarchy is with common descent. Our genetics CLEARLY shows a nested hierarchy with all other life forms.”

I then responded, “First of all, you may view them as pseudoscientific (as do I), but you cannot deny that they are still evolutionists. They believe in macro-evolution. Secondly, calling me a liar without addressing tons of my objections isn’t really the logical way to settle a debate. It’s just another ad hominem attack. But it’s your way, apparently, so you aren’t being very logical, and in fact are committing a logical fallacy. Lastly, exactly how does genetics prove evolution? I challenge you to visit this website and take the survey: http://oddinterviews.com/good-person-test/ . I dare you.”

He then replied, ““but you cannot deny that they are still evolutionists. They believe in macro-evolution.” They do NOT believe in evolution as described by actual scientists. “Secondly, calling me a liar without addressing tons of my objections” I addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE of your objections, LIAR. “It’s just another ad hominem attack.” Another LIE. I haven’t made ONE SINGLE ad hominem attack. You, on the other hand, have made several. “Lastly, exactly how does genetics prove evolution?” Asked and answered, LIAR,.”

I finally responded, “Alright, Shane. I don’t need to answer any more objections as I have already done so. It will be the audience who sees who is actually acting logically and who is acting like an insecure shouter. And may God save you.”

Of course, Shane had the last word, ““I don’t need to answer any more objections as I have already done so.” You’ve answered NOTHING. ALL of the points still stand. Speciation HAS BEEN OBSERVED. The nested hierarchy IS REAL. NONE of your bloviating will EVER change that.”

So what do you think? Was I lying, or was he unable to produce scientific evidence for macro-evolution? Leave your comments on his video, and get ready for a four letter word to get thrown at you for no reason: liar.

Here’s a link to some pictures of the conversation in case he takes them down: Shane Killian VS Joshua Alvarez on YouTube