What list was that, Linda? The one that asks why people in northern climates have fair skin, bliindly ignoring the fact that neither the inuit nor the mongolians nor the eskimos have fair skin? I think I answered everything best I could in 10 minutes Linda.

At any rate, I provided plenty of links to other sources which answer every question you proposed and then some. I really do not have the time or inclination for this argument that your questions with blinders limiting their scope require. It's not possible to answer questions of that nature because they assume things are as you imply they are, which isn't so and I actually have no desire nor the years needed to try to educate you to enable you to see beyond what you believe you know, though Jill might, if she likes or even recognizes the name on your college degree.

The systems of measurement that science uses are all man-made. They are assumptions Linda, based on what we know from living on this tiny rock we call earth. They do not take fully into account what we do not know, because obviously that is impossible. That is a good place for you to start perhaps, because scientists themselves admit that they are just guessing at most of the things you want to propose as fact.

Ken Hovind's 'nonsense' is generated by a nonsensical field of inquiry. You appera to have chosen to disbelieve much of what he says because either 1 - you simply have no desire to think about it or 2 -it's too simple to be believable in your complex mind or 3- You actually did not watch the video and/or are too lazy to read the texts from which he quotes yourself.

Anything that provides a response to a nonsensical subject will seem like nonsense to someone who isn's aware of the context. People once believed the earth was flat as you will recall. They were so sure of this that they attempted to hold the world in bondage to the idea for hundreds of years. That said, it applies to many other things as well, many of which are nonsense and cannot generate anything but a seemingly nonsensical response to someone like your self who desires to perpetuate the idea that the earth is flat or that man is decended from monkeys, as the case may be.

It's a lot like me bothering to reply to you... since anyone with half a brain might lap up what Ken is saying, then Iit should be possible for you to understand what he is saying at least a little bit. It may sound like nonsense to you, but since you have already apparently lapped up the theory of evolution, I don't see where the word 'nonsense' fits into your discussion in the first place. Ken Hovind simply gives you some clues as to the enormous scope of evidence against evolution, and in that he does such an excellent job that even 5th graders can comprehend him. Why you are unable to take a few of the items he has tossed out and actually investigate them is something you need to ask yourself rather than chide others for. Your inability to objectively research is not everyone elses' fault.

Creationists are not the only group that have serious issues with the theories of evolution. but again, your inability to objectively research is not everyone elses' fault though it is interesting that you consistently cite creationists as the only opposing argument to evolution.

Just as a note, before I bow out of this discussion and it's strangely odd assertations of Christian ignorance by the likes of berkeley buttholes wih 5 years of partial real life experience on their plate... evolution is not something I ever normally bother to think about. It is a subject that has been discussed and rediscussed, hashed and rehashed so many thousands of times by so many thousands of people that it is not even truly necessary to begin again since every answer for every question posed as an ideology by evolution propenents is already available to them. The theory of evolution is not useful in my life. it even is not useful to the rest of science. It is does not make my books fall off the shelf, or the house burn down, it does not affect my future, it does not explain the past. It only creates controversy upon controrversy and in that sense is a greater stumbling block.to real knowledge than any other so-called 'scientific theory' I know of. It's controversy, unlike any other branch of science, is never ending because it is not science. Because it cannot be proven it therefore cannot be rationally disproven to the satisfaction of it's proponents, because there are no actual facts to work with. If however, Linda, you take a very good look at every single idea you propose, you will find that none of them even remotely imply evolution in the slightest, but rather, make a fair and quite clear statement as to how little most of us, myself included, truly understand about life on this planet and likewise how awesome, unexplainable, and adaptable life is. And if that is not so as I am sure you are thinking at this moment, then you should not have ever needed to ask the questions in the very first place.