My my my, we have been busy Linda. It is very lucky that there are creation scientists who used to be evolutionists isn't it? When one considers how difficult life is made for any scientist unless he complies with the evolutionary belief, it's no wonder Kent Hovind is hated! But the worst enemies for the evolutionists are the ex-evolutionists and the most potent arrow to their "cause". They are the ones who are most lethal in my book. Kent is very outspoken and I don't doubt he isn't perfect either, but he's still gutsy for stepping up to the plate and willing to debate any of these guys anytime, anywhere! If only they would accept the offer and take him up on it!

I have nothing but praise for the Christian people like Kent Hovind however, who may not have the greatest qualifications, but I think he has a little more than yourself Linda <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> if it's good enough for you as an english teacher? Then it's good enough for Kent. This ..apparent "underachiever" or "idiot" as you like to arrogantly refer to him, is a dread to any evolutionist when it comes to a one on one debate! They prefer instead to mostly - turn him down, ignore his invitation and hide behind the comfort of a website to tear him and his accusations down...see, you can use personality to explain the reason why they won't debate him, or any other excuse, but If this guy was so wrong, any evolutionist would make mince meat out of him very quickly in a live debate, yet they avoid it like the plague! Hey come on, if they have the benefit of more qualifications and new findings, what's the problem here?

I don't care if Mickey Mouse does the presenting, lies in the textbooks speak for themselves and these things need to be made aware to everybody, laypeople included, especially if some of them continue to turn up in any modern day science textbooks, continuing to add to the misleading information these kids are being fed.

You seem to have a 24/7 supply of information at your fingers tips. Congrats, you're a pro at this and something of a master! But I'm afraid that no amount of academic bluster, or riding rough shod over others with new and improved links/information, is really going to make evolution any "truer" than it failed to be years ago.

I think the fact that the evolution faith has been built on a pretty dodgy and shaky foundation and past with the likes of Charles Darwin, who himself had NIL scientific qualifications, should be more than enough, with the past hoaxes of people like Haeckel, exaggerations and bias interpretations for anybody to take "new and improved" claims with a BIG grain of salt.

The problem is the evolutionist has already decided they are right no matter what. Embarrassing past hoaxes, quotes/admissions, are usually denied in one way or the other by them or their devotees and usually they are well versed in doing so as you can see here. I'd say they could earn a degree simply on that alone!

For anybody's interest? Check this out:
Tree Fossil Spanning Many Layers Indicates All were Formed Rapidly:

Obviously we need to rethink how layers in the earth were fomed. This tree (one tree of hundreds found near Cookvile, TN in the Kettles coal mines. USA) proves it was rapid and that all the layers were formed at one time.

How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, 'The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery' 1000 years is typical." p.56. But just look adn think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.
What would happen to the top of the tree in the thousands of years necessary to cover it at the rate pstulated by Officer? Derek Ager, one of the world's best known statigraphers, addresses this challenge, acknowledging "..standing trees up to 10 M high in the Lancashire coalfield of northwest England. Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. We cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid ineed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous, "The New Catastrophism. 1993, p.49.

In spit of how it looks, long periods of time are still claimed, "shoehorned" between the layers, where there is no evidence.