You're the one who wrote "lies" in a big, bold, black font Russ.
OK then, you tell us what specifically you think the "lies" are, and give evidence to support your position.
Honestly, are we playing guessing games with creationists here now? It seems to be a recent bit of fun for y'all to shout "straw man" without further explanation. Do you actually have one (an explanation), or is it a laugh to keep claiming that you didn't mean what it looks like you said? This is looking suspiciously like another distraction technique.
Speaking of which, remember what I said I'd do every time you posted a link to some Hovind vid by way of trying to present an argument here? In all fairness, you yourself should be willing to read
Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index, which handily refutes most of Hovind's claims. Because I'm not sitting through another of his vids and painstakingly refuting all of his claims any more than you're going to read that entire series of web pages.
Evidence on the table: no creationist here has so far been able to explain . . .
why cosmogenic and uranium dating methods are wrong, how a catastrophic flood can cut a meander of the type we've seen in pictures here, how layer upon layer of fossils from marine environments with evidence of growing in place can be evidence of a flood, what an aeolian (wind-blown) sandstone deposit is doing in a supposed flood layer and why it contains tracks of spiders and scorpions, why a flood would cut a channel into ground which is higher than that surrounding it, what paleosols are doing in the Grand Canyon, why none of the layers display mixed or hydrological sorting of fossils or other materials which would be expected in a flood . . .
Care to engage?
