Re: 17 Evidences Against Evolution - refuted!

Religionists believe what they would 'like' to believe. Science believes 
what the 'evidence' shows.

"Budikka666" <budikka1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:df778503-7dfb-4e7c-a309-83e2437962ee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At:
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#17
> Kevin Martin lists "17 Evidences Against Evolution" - note evidences,
> not proofs.  There's a difference, even if Duck & Run is completely
> clueless as to what it is.
>
> The sad thing is that the writer hasn't been to Answers in Genesis
> lately, which site actually disowns a good many of these:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
>
> I'll Identify these as I go.  My guess is that the rest of them are
> refuted at:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
> I'll identify these as I go.  If there are any which are missed by
> either site (and I'll be amazed if t.o. hasn't got all of them
> nailed), I'll address those directly.
>
> 1. MOON DUST
> Disowned at AiG and refuted here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html
>
> 2. MAGNETIC FIELD
> refuted here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
>
>
> 3. FOSSIL RECORD
> Disowned at AiG and refuted here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
> and here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> 4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
> Addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html
>
> 5. PROBABILITY
> 6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
> Both addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
>
> 7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
> addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
>
> 8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
> addressed at AiG and here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html
>
> 9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
> Addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html
> and here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
>
> 10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
> addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
>
> 11. DATING METHODS
> Addressed here:
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
>
> 12. DINOSAURS
> addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html
>
> 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
> Addressed at AiG and here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html
>
>
> 14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
> I've never come across this one before and believe it or not, t.o.
> doesn't have a FAQ on it that I could find.
>
> However, let's look at it: "Measurements of the sediment deposited as
> a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an
> earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal
> overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical
> account."
>
> This is of the same nature as the Mississippi deposition or of the
> Niagara Falls "retreat".  It assumes that the relevant rivers have
> been in existence for Earth's entire existence - clearly nonsense
> unless you a priori assume that the Earth is indeed 6,000 years old as
> the Bible claims.
>
> But look at his age as compared with those of other creationists.  Is
> Earth 6,000 years old as a literal reading of the Bible suggests?  Is
> it 10,000?  Is it 30,000?  When the creationists can actually agree on
> a number *and* provide a solid, scientific foundation for it, then
> we'll take it seriously!
>
> 15. EARTH'S ROTATION
> Addressed here:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
>
> 16. WRITTEN RECORD
> Are they serious about this one?
> "The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven
> ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no
> earlier than 7000 B.C."
>
> It's beneath contempt.  And why should we trust ancient civilizations
> over the best modern science?
>
> 17. THE BIBLE
> This one is absolutely beneath contempt.
>
> Budikka