Russ, this thread is called "Backbone of Creationist Beliefs." I've seen very little evidence that seems to fit this category from you. And again there's little in your two most recent posts. There are many assertions, generalisations, and assumptions about me personally. But still nothing that says that creation explains what we see better than evolution.
You still use implications of irreducible complexity and the argument from incredulity even though I gave you several examples about how complexity has been shown to evolve from simplicity. All stages of the eye from the most basic to the most complex can be traced in evolution and can be seen in modern organisms today. You seem to have made the decision to ignore this. Arguments from incredulity don't work when what you are incredulous about can be explained, and whether you personally want to listen or not is moot.
You assert that the "300 Creationist Lies" website is full of lies. I've heard you assert this about other sites with evolutionary information. Let's have a look, shall we.
Hovind: "If you feel your fingers, you will find that you have different bones in there called flanges.
Lie #53. These bones are called phalanges. There are fourteen in each hand and foot. A real science teacher would know this name. Any PhD who didn't earn his PhD from a diploma-mill would know this name. Hovind is too stupid to know, too lazy to check.
Hovind: "Animals with similar density are buried together. Birds are frequently found on top not because birds evolved last, but because birds were the last ones to drown in the flood."
Lie #56. Animals of similar density are found widely dispersed throughout the fossil record and animals of different densities are found together.. Not a single pterosaur has ever been found up there with the birds. Why is this? I'll tell you why. Hovind is lying.
Hovind: "I have a fourth reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons. Some of these dinosaurs had weird, hollow, bony things on the back of their heads; for example, the Parasaurolophus, the Lambiosaur and the Headrosaur."
Lie #70. Try Lambeosaur and Hadrosaur. Hovind gets the most complicated one right, then screws up the other two. If he cannot even spell the names right, how can we trust anything he says about these creatures? Unless he has fossil evidence that these chambers were used for belching smoke and fire, he has nothing but an inane creationist claim for which there is no foundation either historically or now.
Hovind: "The geologic column has different layers known as the Cenozoid, Mesozoid, Paleozoid, and the Archeozoid."
Lie #76. These time periods are, from oldest to youngest, Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. I guess we should forgive Hovind, for he knows not what he does. Not only is he an amateur geologist, he is also an amateur thinker.
Hovind: "You can get a jar of dirt , put water in it, and shake it up. It will automatically settle out into layers for you. Its called hydrologic sorting."
Yes, but the layers always have the heaviest dirt on the bottom, the lightest on top. This is not what we find with fossil bones. I challenge Hovind, or any creationist, to get a very large container, fill it full of soil, water, and an assortment of fossil bones all of about the same weight and size, but from very different eras (as defined by evolutionary theory). Once they have done this, go right ahead and shake it up, and see if this wonderful, magical "hydrologic sorting" can sort them out into separate strata and keep them as individual as the fossil record has done, with no dinosaurs mixed in with modern mammals, no ancient fish in with modern birds, no bones sitting between two inappropriate strata, etc. I dare him. I double dare him. This would be what scientists call "doing hard science." Of course, the creationists never do any such thing. All they do is whine incessantly about what a tough time they have getting their theories taken seriously. Well I wonder why?
Wow, he really knows his stuff doesn't he? This PhD teacher of physics?
Tell me again who is "full of lies."
I gave you links to Misslers website audio called Strategic Trends and you said ~~ "I'm not going browse a fundamentalist website".
Is this what you call intellectually honesty?
It's what I call "Make your point to me here, rather than telling me to browse a whole website." You're deluding yourself if you think I'm going to arrive at some kind of divine inspiration through reading more pseudoscience.
There is much talk about "rules" in your penultimate post but no substance as to what "rules" exactly you think I am stating wrong, or which ones evolution defies in your opinion. Details please.
In your second post you say:
If you are able to know that the origin of the theory of evolution was in the minds of men who had no scientific training, who had ulterior motives, and who had grave misconceptions about the nature of even a single cell (oversimplifying it by orders of magnitude), then you can understand more about the nature of the theory itself.
Which men specifically? What proof do you have that they had ulterior motives? What were they? And what specifically did they get wrong about the nature of a cell, in your opinion?
You claim that there are no transitional forms. Actually there are quite a few. Technically, all forms are transitional forms, because evolution never stops.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html includes fish, mammals, and birds. I do not expect to hear this dismissed as "a bunch of lies" because all this says is that you do not want to address a challenge to your belief system.
And, as Pwcca said, other conspiracy theories have nothing to do with this. Mercury doesn't. Vaccines don't. Scientific information can be found to support the dangers of amalgams and vaccines. Where is the information supporting creation? You say it's in the Bible. The problem here is that the Biblical creation directly contradicts what we see in reality, and then people like Hovind are forced into messy psuedoscientific attempts at explaining how the two can be reconciled.
Just how much of "what we know" are you willing to throw out? This is what I was wondering when I started this thread. Do you believe that the earth is much younger than scientists say? How do you explain plate tectonics? How do you explain the Grand Canyon and specific features within it, such as angular unconformities? If all fossils were deposited in the flood, how do you explain the way they are fossilized in strata all over the earth? Could we now say that we just can't be sure that science has got anything right? Could the earth's core be made out of ice cream? Could there be dragons living under volcanoes? Did a vapor canopy exist in order for all that rain to come down and flood the earth? Just how ridiculous is this going to get?
My stance on evolution has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic church. As I've stated elsewhere, I hate the fact that children are being taught this pseudoscience and I believe it is a violation of their human rights. Evolution is plain to see, unless you are someone who insists that their holy book is literally word-for-word true and therefore everything in reality that does not fit this must be a lie. You could just as easily be having this debate with a deeply religious Christian who sees the Biblical creation as allegory. Saying that you know best because you have some special kind of divine knowledge isn't going to convince anyone apart from those who want to follow a messiah figure.
I do not have some burning desire to "believe in" evolution, any more than I have a burning desire for gravity to be real. It simply is. It is physical, measurable, basic scientific reality. However, science never accepts anything 100% because it is always open to the possibility that a better theory will come along. Nothing so far has come close to rivalling evolution. I still see very little evidence here that creation could be fact.
