quote:

---

Originally posted by pspano58

Boy, you guys really hate Hovind, don't you?

Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?

---

quote:

---

When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.

---

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for scientific, indisputable, observed facts that macro-evolution occurred, and until it is proven, it should NOT be taught in our schools at taxpayer expense. Period.

---

quote:

---

You want to teach it as a theory that many scientists believe in, okay. That is fine. Creation should be taught as well because most people actually believe in it. But that's not the point.

I believe that NEITHER should be taught because either way it is not relevant to a normal education for children.

Teach them to read, write and do math. Leave the "religions" out of the schools, leave the politically correct doctrines out, stop giving them condoms and teaching them about alternative lifestyles.

If anybody wants this "stuff" to be taught, fine, start your own school and have people pay for it. Don't force ME and millions of others who do not agree with you, to fund your "religion".



Nice try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pspano58

There is NO, I repeat NO evidence of macro-evolution,

---

quote:

---

Claim CE110:
Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old.
Source:
Barnes, Thomas G., 1982. Young age for the moon and earth. Impact 110 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-110.htm
Response:
The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.


The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).

---

quote:

---

Claim CE310:
The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 169.
Response:
This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.


There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

---

quote:

---

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information. These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

---

quote:

---

Modern reptiles and mammals are very distinctive, easily diagnosable, and do not intergrade. Reptiles are covered by scales, mammals by hair; reptiles are cold-blooded, mammals warm-blooded; reptiles do not suckle their young, mammals have mammary glands; reptiles have sprawling posture, mammals have upright posture. Most of these features are soft part anatomy or physiology that very rarely fossilize (although dinosaur skin impressions are known from Cretaceous sediments, and imprints of mammal hair are known from Eocene bats from Germany; Franzen, 1990). In the fossil record, we must look to skeletal features.


There are many skeletal features which allow us to distinguish the reptiles from the mammals (Carroll, 1988; Table 1, rows A, M). The single most important defining characteristic is the nature of the articulation of the lower jaw to the skull (Simpson, 1959). In reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988). In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988).


From

quote:

---

Fine, teach them biology. Stop lying about macro-evolution.

---

quote:

---

The earth is moving away from the sun. So, scientifically you would theorize that the earth used to be closer to the sun. Calculating for millions and even billions of years causes a catastrophic problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pspano58

I am trying to make a point, stunads. If you watch the Sopranos, you'll know what I just said.

---

quote:

---

Biology is fine, Physics is fine, etc.,
Stop teaching macro-evolution. There is NO, I repeat NO evidence of macro-evolution, only micro-evoltion and you know it.

---

quote:

---

Also, the point is this: the Creation, even though not a part of science, is a perfectly fine explanation of what may have happened.

---

quote:

---

Stop referring to macro-evolution as a fact, because you don't know, you just hope. Therefore, don't teach it in schools as such because you have and are continuing to brain-wash millions of kids into believing it is a fact...

---

quote:

---

...and therefore causing millions of young christians to doubt God's word...

---

quote:

---

...and if I were you, I would be very afraid of that.

---

quote:

---

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

I happened to happen across this from the excellent Michael Shermer, in my aimless wanderings around the web. It's nothing new really, or particularly exciting, but it might help clarify matters here.

quote:

---

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

---

Sometimes I think of evolution being like a nagging wife. You might lover her or you might hate her, but either way, you're stuck with her, 'cause there ain't no way to divorce her.

---