Bex would you mind using the quote facility here instead of putting your comments in bold? The effect is a bit like being shouted at.

I think you may find that Antony Flew is not the "leading" evolutionist he's been made out to be. Most people have never heard of him. Now if Richard Dawkins, young and completely sound of mind, had a Pauline conversion, then believe me there would be a big stir. I'm also not convinced of Flew's state of mind, or what he's allowed creationists to write in his name, but I don't know why any of this should be considered a "breakthrough." Like I said, atheists and creationists are playing ping-pong and each side is as dogmatic as the other, trying to convert people and score victories.

If you are going to talk about ID as a theory, can you present some evidence for it, other than the Bible says so, or the argument from incredulity?

You keep saying you don't see transitional forms. There are many in the fossil record. I did say I gave some examples in other places here. Here is one I gave about the whale.

The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is now quite detailed. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.

a. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).

b. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).

f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).

The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).

Where would you draw the line between human and ape? You seem to be claiming that neanderthals were humans, though this again involved throwing out archaeological evidence and claiming that the dating methods scientists use are erroneous and even deliberate hoaxes to mislead everybody. Can you explain how that may be? And how would you classify homo erectus or homo habilis? When did God create them?

You asked about wrong facts that I've found on creationist websites. I've seen more examples than I can count of creationists like Hovind demonstrating that they don't know much about science, but I'll give you an example from the Answers in Genesis site. Criticising Hovind is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ken Ham & friends on AiG present “research” from a book by Russell Humphreys, claiming to address the question of why we receive light from stars that are billions of light years away, if the universe is young. Humphreys says that the earth is near the center of the universe, at the bottom of a deep gravitational well. Relativistic effects result in billions of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the earth. This explains how multibillion-year-old stars and galaxies can exist in a universe only a few thousand years old. You’ve got to hand it to him, it’s imaginative at least, but it’s also impossible.

Gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. However, what we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) is that such time dilation is minor. According to astronomoers there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. Let me know if I need to define what a red shift is.

Humphreys tries to use clocks in the earth's frame of reference. But the cosmos is much older than the earth. Judging from the heavy elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system, our sun is a second-generation star at least. Billions of years must have passed for the first stars to have formed, shone, and become novas, for the gasses from those novas to have gathered into new star systems, and for the earth to form and cool in one such system. The billions of years before the earth are not accounted for in Humphreys' model.

Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted.

This is one example of young earth creationism from astronomy. There are others that can be found from many other scientific disciplines. Often people making claims like "blood has been found in unfossilised dinosaur bones" turn out to have researched no more deeply than popular magazine articles and often have never looked at the scientific studies which they are misquoting.

What point would I like you to address about the flood? Let's start with a few basic ones. What happened to all the plants on the earth while they were covered in water all that time? (Hint: I can tell you what happens to my houseplants when I overwater them and stick them in a dark place out of the sun.) What about all the insects? Were you aware that a conservative estimate for the number of species of cockroach is 4,000? What about amoebas, paramecia, and all those other microscopic critters, what happened to them? Also, where did all the water come from, and where did it go? The creationist leaders used to advocate something called the vapour canopy theory but in recent years they seem to have decided to put it to the side. There are hundreds of other feasibility questions but let's just start with these.

I wouldn't argue with what you say about scientists at the end of your post, until the very last sentence. Whose depth of learning, study and achievements do you admire? Not those of archaeologists, geologists, astronomers, biologists or physicists, to name a few. You are essentially accusing them of either lying, or being duped in some grand conspiracy. Who are the scientists you do admire?

By the way, a comment about the links and videos that Russ posts here. I am being quite honest in saying that my computer will not play the videos. But what I've also explained before is that it is really not acceptable in a debate to post a link and expect someone to debate against a whole website or video. It requires virtually no work from the person posting, and it demands a huge amount of work from the debate opponent. It is more fair to everyone if the points that each person makes are debated. That is why I talked in my own words here about Humphreys' ideas regarding cosmology, rather than posting links to websites. I told Russ that if he's going to keep telling me to debate entire websites, I will simply tell him to debate websites of my own choosing which already do just that, and neither of us is going to get anywhere. I did ask him to summarise these videos in his own words but he hasn't done so yet. I also ignored a chunk of what SoSick posted because I will not respond to posts full of insults, no matter what else they contain.