You allege that evolution is some kind of grand conspiracy. The burden of proof is on you here as the maker of this statement. What convincing evidence can you give me? I want it to specifically involve evolution and nothing about mercury or global warming or the end of the world.


Why can you not tell me in your own words why you believe that scientists all over the world don't accept evolution? Are you telling me you believe it because someone in a video told you? Who is this person, Hovind? How does he know? I said in my last post that I'm not sitting through another one of his videos, nor is it my job to exhaustively make notes on all the scientific errors and fallacies it includes so that I can explain them to you. If you watched the video yourself and found it convincing, can you not pick out one or two things that were said and present them for discussion here?


Go look at TalkOrigins or the Creation vs. Evolution sites then. Many creationists are only able to claim that no evidence for evolution exists because their science education has been severely lacking and they honestly do not know what the evidence is. If you are getting your own evidence from sites like AiG then you are accepting, unquestioningly, the fallacies that are dished out there. If we can get down to some specific examples here I'll be happy to discuss them. So far everyone's been skirting around this.


On the contrary. I've been checking out a lot of facts since I started discussing with creationists here. I've had to learn a lot about geology and biology depsite the fact that they're not exactly the subjects that interest me most. What do you claim the facts actually are? I haven't seen any creationist arguments that stand up to scientific scrutiny. Do you, Russ, check out the "facts" that people like Hovind tell you, or are you content to believe that he is a fountain of wisdom?

Please let's leave amalgams out of this. Mercury has nothing to do with evolution.


No, I'm saying that your evidence is anecdotal. You claim that creationism is truth because you are religious and have a relationship with God. That is something personal for you, but it proves nothing scientifically. A Hindu could be telling me that Kali the Destroyer is on her way here tomorrow. By your logic I should believe this too because the Hindu is a religious person.


The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific one. I don't mind what people believe about it; but when it causes some people to claim that the scientific knowledge that has accumulated over centuries should be thrown out as lies, and that children should be taught this, I take issue. There is no case for creationism being scientific in any way. And many Christians who believe in the Bible are not creationists. You are again branding your own personal reading of this book as the one and only truth.


Exact quotes please?


I'm not hunting through a fundamentalist website. If you have evidence for what you say then give it here please.

The relationship of the Bible to the United States, and the politics of communism, are completely separate issues and I want to focus on evolution here. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.

You are fond of telling me that I don't understand the Bible. I understand that believing in literal creation flies in the face of hundreds of years of accumulated scientific knowledge. You accuse me of an ad hominem attack on Hovind. Maybe that's true. I despise the lying idiot. We don't have to discuss anything else about him personally, let's focus on some of his ideas. Present one or two of them for discussion if you will. If not, then every time you tell me to watch a video of his, I will tell you to read this. http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html It's called the 300 Creationist Lies Index and it's all based on Hovind's knowledge and wisdom. If we are agreed not to attack Hovind personally, then I'm going to ask you to do the same for me. Over and over you accuse me of being naive, a pawn of the system, unquestioning, unthinking. You're attacking me -- baselessly, I might add -- and are avoiding the discussion of any actual details.


Of course I have. I could explain to you how scientists determine the age of the earth and the universe if you like. Why don't you tell me how this is wrong, and give me examples of how the textbooks have changed? Can you actually do this, or are you just parroting some of Hovind's favourite sayings back at me?

There's no evidence in the rest of your post either, only more links to videos and claims that I just can't see the truth. It's tiring hearing the same song over and over. Let's get back to the point here shall we. You claim that God created life as it is today and that evolution is a pack of lies. I say that there is abundant verifiable evidence in many fields of science supporting evolution, and I would need equally convincing verifiable evidence for creation if I were to consider it as a plausible alternative theory. What I am getting here is generalizations, links to websites and videos by creationists (I'm familiar with enough of those), and endless attempts to sidetrack the issue and belittle my own position through accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about.

This seems to be a theme here. A year or so ago, a scientist calling himself Tito talked in this area of the forum with you, Russ, do you remember? He got the same sorts of replies you are giving me. He said you were indulging in ideological rhetoric. After repeated failed attempts to get you to say something specific about your beliefs, he went away.

Are you going to take up that challenge now? Give a logical argument in your own words?