EggplantTrent

I am debating a creationist and he just gave me nine links which supposedly falsify evolution. Some of them seem pretty weak, but I don't have enough knowledge to rebut them so I am at a loss for words.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid3.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid8.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

EggplantTrent

RBH

All of them are discussed in greater or lesser detail, mostly greater, at www.talkorigins.org. Browse or search the FAQs.

RBH

BRO3886

I think I got to no.4 before I had to quit.

The sheer numbers of logical and factual errors even a layman (relative to many board members anyways) such as myself can spot is staggering.

I'm off to do something more rewarding. I hear eye-gouging can be fun.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

I'm surprised you made it that far.

Number three made me SO MAD I had to hit something. Point 12 on it states that "In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything. "

Of course, some of their other gems are just as disgustingly useless.

Tell that person that anyone with sophomore level undergrad physics can refute some of that shit outright. Hell, I can refute a lot of stuff in their "evidences" outright because it is stupidly false.



Number nine:


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Edited for profanity. Keep it clean, please. -GunnerJ]

Albion

I see they fall back on the usual stuff about how scientists are so keen to accept the atheistic evolution nonsense that they'll commit major profesional misconduct in order to do so:'

*Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
* Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/wrong.htm

That really annoys me, considering the way creationists resort to lies about science whenever they think it'll give them an advantage.

Minnesota

I think it's very telling to note the resources used to counter evolution. I've reprinted these below as they were listed. The only secular pulisher in the bunch is Regnery. However, they can be faulted for publishing the silly tome listed below by Phillip Johnson.

ANTI-THEORY OF EVOLUTION / PRO-CREATIONISM


[1] Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988.
[3] Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990.
[4] Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986.
[7] Ham, ken, et. al. The Answers book, El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
> [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
> [16] McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1981.
[17] Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
> [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988.
[19] Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.
> [22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.
[24] Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

GunnerJ

Eggplant: One thing you should realize is that evidence falsifying evolution (if any) is not evidence for creationism. Creationism must stand on its own merits, which unfortunately for you are very few, to understate things.

False.

29+ evidences for Macroevolution

Transitional Vertibrate Fossils

This statement betrays a deep misunderstanding of evolution. There are no "higher" or "lower" orders. Evolution is not a great chain of being from "lower" to "higher" forms.

1)The theory of evolution makes no statements about the orgin of life, nor the origin of matter. The first has to do with abiogenesis theory, which someone else will have to find information about, and the second deals with cosmology.

Big Bang Cosmology Primer

2) Humans are animals.

False.

Fossil Hominids

Points five and six require more expertise on the subject of hominid evolution than I have, however, chances are the link above handles these (baseless and unsupported) claims.

1) Natural selection is not a normative sociological theory. It is a descriptive biological theory. What we observe about gene flow in life forms is not a guide for how human scoieties should work.

2) Altruism is a very workable strategy for species preservation, so even if we could use natural selection as a social guide, it would not necessarily lead to barbarism.

3) The supposed "practical problems" have so many inherent misconceptions and unsupported assertions at their base that I don't even know where to begin deconstructing them. Perhaps soemone with more patience will.

Supposed logical inconsistencies:

There is no reason to beleive that positing and unevidenced "creator" is a better explaination than known natural forces. The creator hypothesis is not only incredibly unparimonious, it is also unflasifiable. Anything can be construed as the act of a creator with enough trying.

1) Similar DNA would seem a good indication of common design until you relaize that no designer with any brains would reuse nonfunctional and soemtimes malicious code. Only a blind, unintellegent natural force such as natural selection would work in such a jury rigged way.

Junk DNA Shared by Whales and Cows

Jury-Rigged Design

The above link has interesting implications for anyone positing an intelelgent, compassionate creator.

2) The author's assertion that variation would be impossible with a shared common ancestor is neither logically nor evidencially supported.

I have to beleive that this is a joke. No one inteligent enough to operate a computer could see this as a serious argument.

I am unsure of what the author's point is. Suffice to say, the growth of individual organisms is not an analogy for change in a population, which is what evolution deals with.

I will reply to the rest later.

Conchobar

Argument one against transitional forms:

Plant to Animal Transitions

Euglena, one of 150 species of Protista, a transitional that has mobile properties and feeds like protozoa (unicellular animals) but also has chloroplasts and can manufacture food like green algae. These transitionals are still around today.

II. Fish to Amphibian Transition

Copyright 1997 G.R.Morton. This may be freely distributed as long as no change is made to the text and no charge is made.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm

Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms. This claim is made over and over as if it were a mantra. The plain fact is that there are transitional sequences but they never discuss the details. This is a sequence of fossils which occupy the transition from fish to amphibian.

378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508). This fish also had lungs and nostrils (Vorobyeva and Schulze, 1991, p.87) but also had gills. These things really looked like tetrapods until you see the fins. The teeth had infolding enamel which is identical to that of the earliest tetrapods. Unlike all fish but like the tetrapods, the Panderichthys have lost the dorsal and anal fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where legs would be in the Tetrapods.(Ahlberg and Milner, p.508). This contradicts Gish's claim that there is no fossil which shows loss of fins. (Gish, 1978, p. 78-79). Unlike fish, Panderichthys had a tail, like the amphibians with the fins stretched out along the top (Carroll, 1995, p. 389; Carroll, 1996, p. 19).
This is not a Panderichthys, but it is a related lobe-finned Devonian fish out of my personal collection. It gives some idea of what they looked like.


Panderichthyids and all other osteolepiform fish had a choana, a hole between the nasal passage and the mouth. This hole is missing in all other lobe-finned fish. It allowed air to pass from the nose into the mouth.. But Panderichthys also had external nostrils which were in the same position as those of the early tetrapods. (Schultze, 1991, p. 58). The lower jaws of panderichthyids had broad coronoids with fangs (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299)

370--Fish similar to Sauripterus. A very recent discovery in Pennsylvania by Daeschler and Shubin (1998, p. 133; Kinney, 1998) is of a fish which has fins, which is not unusual, except that inside of the fins were 8 fingers attached in a similar way to those of the earliest amphibians (see below). While many doubt that this creature is on the direct line of descent between fish and amphibians, the existence of fins with 'fingers' is illustrative of the fact that intermediate forms (broadly defined) do exist. Interestingly, as we shall see some of the earliest amphibians also had 8 digits on their hands.


368-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)

368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs. Daeschler notes that this animal also has the parasymphysial fans of a tetrapod. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307)

365-363 MYR -Hynerpeton-more advanced legs and pelvic girdle than Ichthyostega. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19) The coronoid fangs are not present. It lacked internal gills (Daeschler et al, 1994, p 641). There is no mention of feet having been found in Daeshler's report. The shape of the pectoral girdle implies both an aquatic and a terrestrial lifestyle.

365-363 MYR -Densignathus rowei--known only from the jaw but it is transitional between fish and amphibians. It has the parasymphysial fang of a stem tetrapod but also the coronoid fangs of a fish. As noted above Daeschler says this combination is also found in Obruchevichthys, Ventastega and Metaxygnathus. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307). The earlier fish had a closed manidbular canal while the early amphibians had an open mandibular canal. Densignathus rowei is intermediate with a partially enclosed mandibular canal. Once again a transitional trait.

363 MYR-Ichthyostega-- Is the first animal with feet but the feet are different than most tetrapod feet. They are much like Acanthostega but has 7 digits on his hindlimb. His legs were only good for being in water. They could not support his weight. (Coates and Clack, 1990, p. 67) These are half evolved legs since they have more digits than the normal tetrapod but fewer bony rays than the fish and they are unable to support the weight. This contradicts Gish's statement that there are no half-evolved feet. (Gish, 1978, p. 79) . Ichthyostega had external nasal openings and a choana like that of the Panderichthys (Schultze, 1990, p. 35). He has lungs and gills. His tail was long with fins above and below like that Panderichthys and Acanthostega. (Carroll, 1992, p. 46). His legs were tetrapod having humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (see diagram Carroll, 1992, p. 46).

363 MYR- Acanthostega- has four legs, lungs but still has internal gills. (Coates and Clack , 1991, p. 234) He has 8 digits on his front leg (see second picture below); seven on his back feet. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389) His legs could not support his weight either. (Coats and Clack, 1990, p. 66-67). Ahlberg (1991, p. 301) points out that the front legs were more fish-like than the back legs. He has fishlike lower arm bones (Coates and Clack 1990, p. 67). Once again, contrary to Gish (1978, p. 79), these are still half-evolved legs. He also retains a caudal fin (Coates, 1994, p. 175) and an elongated tail with fins stretched out along the top. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389). The stapes, the bone which eventually became part of the hearing apparatus in tetrapods was still used for ventilation of the gills (Clack,1989, p. 426).

Acanthostega served from http://www.sciencenews.org/Sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1a.jpg

One thing that the earliest tetrapods lacked were hands that could flex. We can curl our fingers and toes because of the arrangement of the tendons in our digits. None of the above tetrapods could do this simple trick because they lacked a notch in the flexor surface on the phalanges. Because of this, walking on a rocky surface, which requires the ability to curl the paws around various obstacles, would have been difficult for the early tetrapods. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega would only have been able to bend their hands slightly (Monastersky, 1999, p. 329).

Thus, while they had hands, they were partially evolved hands. It wasn't until the evolution of Casineria kiddi, that these notches are found on each phalange. (Paton et al, 1999, p. 512)

350 MYR ago. Pederpes finneyae- This creature was discovered at Dumbarton, Scotland. It has 5 toes on each foot with the exception of a small relict finger/toe on the forepaw. Because of this, this creature is transitional between the later amphibians and Acanthostega and Ichthyostega discussed above (Carroll, 2002, p. 35). This creature has a primitive stapes, the bone used in hearing and it resembles that of Acanthostega rather than those of the later amphibians. The expanded triangular flair on the ribs resemble those of Ichthyostega. (Clack, 2002, p. 74). But, unlike the early tetrapods this creature has a "clearly distinguishable metatarsals that are bilaterally and proximodistally asymmetric." (Clack, 2002, p.75). This is a trait which it shares only with the later terrestrially adapted amphibians. Thus, once again, this creature shows intermediate or transitional traits. Those who erroneously claim transitional forms don't exist, haven't looked at the data.

340 MYR ago. Fully evolved amphibians. Amniator, Crassigyrinus, Loxommatoidea, Temnospondyl, Colosteidae, Acanthracosauria.
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/depa..._creation/web/


III. Amphibians to Reptiles (amniotes) Transitionals.

Along with its surprises, the tetrapod from Cheese Bay also offers some confirmation for a 30-year-old theory about how amniotes arose.

"As soon as I saw the specimen of Casineria, I was terribly excited because here was a small form," says paleontologist Robert L. Carroll of McGill University in Montreal. In 1970, Carroll proposed that amniotes evolved from a line of miniature amphibians, much smaller than brutes like Acanthostega.
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm

Unlike many amphibians, most plethodontid salamanders lay their eggs on land and do not pass through a larval stage. Instead, the embryonic salamanders develop directly into an adult body form. At the heart of Carroll's theory lies the amniote egg, which has a series of membranes not present in the simpler eggs of frogs and salamanders.

Now, researchers must push back their search to the time preceding Casineria kiddi, when animals were first coming to grips with their new, dry environment. In rocks older than the Cheese Bay specimen, paleontologists will chisel away at the ancient sediments, hammers held tight in a five-fingered grasp that reaches straight through the ages back to the Carboniferous world.

The oldest amniotes currently known date from the Middle Pennsylvanian locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia (Carroll, 1964). The relationships of these fossils indicate that amniotes first diverged into two lines, one line (Synapsida) that culminated in living mammals, and another line (Sauropsida) that embraces all the living reptiles (including birds).

One Joggins fossil, the "protorothyridid" Hylonomus, appears to be a very early member of the line leading to Sauria (Crown-clade diapsids), the clade encompassing all living diapsids. This suggests that the more inclusive clade of which turtles (Testudines) are part (Anapsida) in most morphological phylogenies had diverged as well, even though its current record extends back only to the Lower Permian (Laurin & Reisz, 1995). http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota...al_Vertebrates

IV. Reptile to Bird Transitionals

Harpagus bidentatus

IBEROMESORNIS
(pronounces eye-BER-oh-mes-OR-nis) Iberomesornis (meaning "Iberian=Spanish intermediate bird") was a small, early, toothed bird that lived during the early Cretaceous period. It was capable of powered flight. It had tiny, spiky teeth in its beak and was the size of a sparrow. Its hip was primitive compared to modern birds; its ilium, ischium, and pubis were all parallel and directed backward. Iberomesornis was named by paleontologists Sanz and Bonaparte in 1992. Fossils were found in Spain. The type species is I. romeralli.

ICHTHYORNIS
Ichthyornis (meaning "fish bird") were 8 inch (20 cm) long, toothed, tern-like, extinct bird that date from the late Cretaceous period. It had a large head and beak. This powerful flyer is the oldest-known bird that had a keeled breastbone (sternum) similar to that of modern birds. It lived in flocks nesting on shorelines, and hunted for fish over the seas. Ichthyornis was originally found in 1872 in Kansas, USA, by a member of paleontologist Othniel C. Marsh's Yale University expedition. Fossils have been found in Kansas and Texas, USA and Alberta, Canada. (Subclass Odontornithes, Order Ichthyornithiformes

HESPORNIS
Hespornis (meaning "western bird") was an early, flightless bird that lived during the late Cretaceous period. This diving bird was about 3 feet (1 m) long and had webbed feet, a long, toothed beak, and strong legs. Although it couldn't fly, it was probably a strong swimmer and probably lived near coastlines and ate fish. Fossils have been found in North America .

V. Reptile to Mammal Transitions

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

The mammals are believed to have evolved from a class of Permian and Triassic reptiles known as therapsids. Taxonomically, mammals are distinguished by a number of features, the most obvious of which are hair (even such aquatic mammals as whales and dolphins still retain bristly hairs in their skin), and the presence of mammary glands which secrete milk, used to nourish the young. Neither of these structures is preserved in the fossil record, but fortunately, mammals can also be distinguished by a number of skeletal characteristics (particularly in the skull and teeth).

In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form.

Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup).

At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.


"Probainognathus, a small cynodont reptile from the Triassic sediments of Argentina, shows characters in the skull and jaws far advanced toward the mammalian condition. Thus it had teeth differentiated into incisors, a canine and postcanines, a double occipital condyle and a well-developed secondary palate, all features typical of the mammals, but most significantly the articulation between the skull and the lower jaw was on the very threshhold between the reptilian and mammalian condition. The two bones forming the articulation between skull and mandible in the reptiles, the quadrate and articular respectively, were still present but were very small, and loosely joined to the bones that constituted the mammalian joint . . . Therefore in Probainognathus there was a double articulation between skull and jaw, and of particular interest, the quadrate bone, so small and so loosely joined to the squamosal, was intimately articulated with the stapes bone of the middle ear. It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229

The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. Thus, it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another, freeing up the rest of these bones to form the auditory ossicles in the mammalian middle ear. (In fact, in most modern reptiles, the jawbones in question actually function in transmitting sound waves to the inner ear, so the transformation postulated above is not a functional change, merely an improvement in a fnction that these bones already had). As Arthur N. Strahler puts it, "A transitional form must have had two joints in operation simultaneously (as in the modern rattlesnake), and this phase was followed by a fusion of the lower joint." (Strahler 1987, p. 414) The creationists find this process to be impossible to conceive, and claim there is no fossil evidence for it:

Paleontologists point out that the therapsids possessed many of the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals:

"In advanced forms, the skull was intermediate in type between that of a primitive reptile and a mammal; many of the bones absent in mammals were on their way toward reduction or were already lost. A small third eye was still generally present in the top of the skull, but its opening was a tiny one." (Romer, 1967, p. 226)

"The differentiation of the teeth progressed in the therapsids to high levels of development, with the advanced genera showing sharply contrasted incisors, canines, and cheek teeth, which in some of these reptiles were of complex form, often with accessory cusps or broad crowns. In many therapsids, the occipital condyle became double, as in the mammals." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 118)

"In many respect, the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 127)

The therapsid-mammal transition was completed with the appearence of the Morganucodonts in the late Triassic. This group is described by paleontologist T.S. Kemp:

"The axes of the two jaw hinges, dentary-squamosal and articular-quadrate, coincide along a lateral-medial line, and therefore the double jaw articulation of the most advanced cynodonts is still present . . . The secondary dentary-squamosal jaw hinge had enlarged (in the Morganucodonts) and took a greater proportion if not all of the stresses at the jaw articulation. The articular-quadrate hinge was free to function solely in sound conduction." (Strahler, 1987, p. 419)

Whew! I am tired. We have so many transitional animal forms that it takes too long to list them despite the ignorance and lies spread by pseudoscience groups supporting Biblical Creation Rubbish.

Conchobar

GunnerJ

I'm really not sure where this criticism is coming from. While evolution claims that genes not beneficial to the prosperity of a speicies will not increase in frequency in the species' gene pool, and that genes beneficial to an organisms' ability to survive and reproduce will increase in the species' gene pool, it does not suggest that all an arbitrary member of a species will do is for survival. Some behaviors are neutral side effects.

On a side note, I fail to see how an organism capable of making friends would not gain a survival advantage.

1) Terms like "order" without specific examples are not good evidence.

2) Interdependance relationships do not require design so long as one member of the relationship was independant at one time and only grew dependant later.

3) Who is arguing for "chance" as an explaination for complex biological development? Certainly not proponents of evolution. I smell a straw man.

Bullshit.

Problems with a global flood

Of interest is the section on geological implications of a global flood.

To continue from my last post, her eis a reply to point seven's "practical problems" for natural selection.

I am unsure why an organism would ahve to "get worse" temorarily to "form an eye." Perhaps some education about the evolution of the eye is in order. This link has good info on the subject:

Evolution of Color Vision

1) What doe sit mean for an organsim to "begin as crude?" More misconceptions about evolution/.

2)There are many organsims which do not have resperatory functions. I'm unsure what the author means by "the organism" but I've never seen any formulation of evolutionary theory which suggests that new species must "begin anew" without nay of the functions of their ancestor species.

3) Evolution doe snot suggest that any orgnaism or species starts out without the ability to reproduce. This is ridiculous.

Evolution does not "create by disorder." Given the sheer number of misconceptions about evolution present, I suggest that you, Eggplant, should look over at least the following FAQs:

What is evolution?

Intro to Evolution

Misconceptions about evolution

Evolution and the 2nd LoT

openeyes

Having just been traumatized last evening watching around 2000 of my fellow Minnesotans lap up everything Kent Hovind says (it's "Creation Weekend" in Minnesota, see this thread ), I plan to become more versed in the anti-creationism arguments. I hadn't realized there was such a need to counteract such nonsense!

Afterward, another atheist and I talked with a theist couple over coffee who used many of the arguments that EggplantTrent's friend lists to try to discredit evolution. We tried to counteract, but since the level of acceptance of the crap Hovind utters is so high for some people we didn't make much headway. I will direct them to the talkorigins website in hopes that maybe something will sink in (the husband of the couple tries to keep up a pretense of openmindedness).