Hey Russ, nice denial you got going there.
You've got to be joking.
The truth is:
Where there is order, there is intelligence.
Assertion isn't fact, no matter how big and bold you post it. Nor does denial make the evidence go away. We have evidence of evolution occurring. AiG admits it. Of course this evidence of evolution is for the REAL evolution and not the Russtolution version.
Congratulations, btw, you just asserted that a snowflake is intelligent: it has order. Curiously, the
kaleidoscope is not a scientific instrument.
There is no evidence. This information is nothing more than propaganda. I know this is hard for you to accept, but you will, before long.
Just remember this:
When your friends in high places (that would be those who brought you the evolution fairytale) come asking you to put a mark on your hand or forehead so you can conduct commerce, that might be a good time to check out what the Bible said about this situation.
Now we have the argument from consequences logical fallacy on top of the conspiracy theory. You've outdone yourself today.
Curiously this does not make the fossil record disappear, nor does it affect the record of transitional features from fossil to fossil. The foraminifera in particular show this declaration of denial to be false, based more on cognitive dissonance than reality.
There is no fossil record. There are only certain places on Earth where fossils appear in an order that is pleasing to the evolution propaganda.
Curiously those "certain places" cover the earth, in great depth, but this does not occur just because it is "pleasing to the evolution propaganda" -- propaganda cannot make fossils appear in any order, or rearrange anything but the minds of the gullibles.
The facts still remain that the geological and fossil record supports the explanation for the diversity of life by natural evolution.
It would be beneficial for you to watch the Hovind video and learn about circular reasoning...
http://urlbam.com/ha/KHovind is a fraud and a liar. His video on the Grand Canyon was shown to be a falsehood, and his own argument in the video falsified it. This video repeats his self-invalidating argument. It's hilarious that you list a video which repeats information already falsified. Poetic justice is like that.
This video does not present any evidence of falsehoods in
textbooks, just a lot of misrepresentation and assertion. What he uses to assert textbook falsehoods are, in fact, lies of
his making (like the one about the formation of the Grand Canyon that has already been dealt with).
Each of his presentations of his so called lies misrepresents the facts, he lies about it.
Curiously what he says is
not shown in the geological column - evidence of rain and erosion of layers in the column, evidence of soils - are actually in the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon in several places.
Fossils are used to
correlate layers of sediment: simply put, layers with the same fossil species are the same relative age (occurred while those organisms lived). The layers with the
original index fossils were not dated by the fossils, but by superposition (a small but rather crucial omission in Hovind's false presentation - crucial because it invalidates his "circular reasoning" argument and demonstrates that it is a(nother) lie).
Fossils are not the only indexes for relative age, there are several volcanic eruptions that can also be used to show relative similarity in age. Like the iridium layer, that resulted from the meteor crash in the Yucatan 65 million years ago, finding evidence of that feature in layers anywhere on earth shows them to be the same relative age as the original index.
This relative dating of layers by superposition and correlation of layers by index fossils was figured out well before Darwin and Lyell. Curiously the radiometric dating methods have only
confirmed the relative ages and correlations with more precise ages.
These are just a couple of examples that show his statements regarding these things are false, he lies about it.
Amusingly
Hovind's "degree" is itself a lie:
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].
Feel free to look up Patriot University
http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Resources/PatriotUniversity2.jpghttp://www.patriotuniversity.org/Curiously, one thing they don't list is faculty, rather they have this disclaimer:
Faculty
It is often said that one can measure the credibility of a school by its faculty. It is recommended that a prospective student make inquiry into the school's faculty and their qualifications. We agree, this is very good advice, if you are planning to attend a traditional college.
However, Patriot's courses are self-directed correspondence studies and as such do not employ professors. Patriot is curriculum-based learning rather than professor based classroom teaching. Our courses are assembled by and under the direction of Dr. Lonnie Skinner of Patriot Bible University.
(italic in the original: translation "traditional" means "real")
Looks like the mail clerk grades the papers by how far they can be thrown, unopened, eh?
I still haven't seen an evolutionist deal with one of the fundamental problems with evolution: it's mathematical absurdity.
Strangely, until you actually demonstrate the maths behind this, all we have are loud assertions of ridiculous claims. Mathematics cannot prove reality, nor can mathematical calculation change reality. All math can do is model reality, and when reality and the model do not agree, it is the model that is wrong. Clearly, then, what is "absurd" is the assumptions made in your calculations. Of course your calculations are based on Russtolution, your absurd misrepresentation of evolution, so proving Russtolution to be absurd is circular reasoning.
Thanks for the chuckles, RussT. Try larger text next time, and see if that improves your argument any.
Enjoy.
