tgamble

huh? he operate on the tendon. Long story.

Valentine Pontifex

tgamble,

I will have to agree with the others...it is simply not worth the effort to make a systematic debunking of the piece in question.

1) It is in the worst of the worst category making many claims already disputed in other places (including some YEC sites).

2) The site will never put a recipical link to the debunking so only a tiny percent of victims will ever find the debunking.

3) Disputing every point in article making dozens of unrelated points is NOT an effective way to write a web article. It is far more effective to pick a few points (or one) and show what is wrong with them. If a reader realizes that people behind this site can't be trusted with the facts than they will not take the other claims seriously either.


These points are, of course, not just aimed at this particular article. Writing large web articles trying to debunk every point of a large creationist web articles is not nearly as needed as documents dealing with very particular creationist claims or providing information on a very particular subject in the E/C "debate."

Albion

How on earth can anybody answer a statement that the Sun's angular momentum is "supposed" to be 700 times greater than that of the planets? Where are they getting that 700 times from? I'll run this one by an astrophysicist, but without knowing what that 700 is about, I don't see how it can be answered.

Coragyps

And it makes little difference how much angular momentum the Sun "should" have, anyway. There are proposed mechanisms, with observations backing them up, on how the Sun's magnetic field "dragging" through the charged solar wind has (and is) putting the brakes on the Sun's rotation. One of the space probes up there (I could possibly find details if REALLY pressed to) has measured the "sideways" motion of those protons up there, and the numbers match up with what was predicted.

I think you will find that not even ICR is still claiming that the "neutrino problem" proves a young Sun, now that experiment has shown that the "problem" was just the technology of our measurement of neutrinos. The gaps continue to close on the YEC god, they may not have one left in a few more years. (well, centuries, maybe? )

Aahz

Why don't you just post something like:

Bwahahahahahahahaha...ooohhhh must breath Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...gasp...Bwahahahaha hahahahaha.

That has to be the most ridiculous site. For those who are going to believe in it, they probably didn't need that...evidence..ack ptooi sorry shouldn't have used that word in reference to that site. Further, they are probably woefully un-educated about science and you'd have to spend a loooooong time on the background information or anything you write will go whoosh!

tgamble

Call me cynical but that's not always the case. How many times has the ICR been exposed as a either dishonest or incompetant? Bullfrog proteins, bombardier beetle, paluxly man tracks, falling for april fools jokes, moon dust argument. The list is endless. Yet still the ICR (and AIG) have followers. Hell, even Kent Hovind has followers and I don't need to point out how often he's been exposed as an incompetant liar. Even by other YECs!

mibby529

Uh, when was The Origin of Species written?

The rest of this assumes that you just has to disprove one element and then appeal to ignorance. Disproving evolution wouldn't prove the Bible. And in order to prove the Bible, one would have to prove EVERYTHING in the Bible. (Hard to do, since in the Ussher chronology, this is the Seventh Millennium, yet no one has seen Jesus return.)

1) "Rapid mutation" has been proven in insects and bacteria.
3) And creationists have made such mistakes as Kennewick man (Asatru, but creationist nonetheless,) the NASA "extra day," the human/dinosaur footprint, etc.
6) But they're still older than 6,000 years.
7) It has to have a purpose.
8) And there are no transitionals between yourself and your own children.
13) This assumes that the conditions of the universe are static.
14) The Second Law only applies to isolated systems.
15) This assumes the conditions of earth are static. 4 billion years ago, there was no oxygen, which interferes with abiogenesis.
19) Creationists hate supernovas too. We can see supernovas 189,000 light-years away. That means the universe must be at least 189,000 years old.
20) An interesting story about the human eye. But so what? My computer can perform millions of functions a day. Should I worship Babbage?
22) There are also different orders of insects, determined by HOW they fly. (Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, etc.)
25) ALL our organs? Then why does Yahweh insist that the Jews chop off the foreskin? If it has a function, wouldn't it be better to keep it? And what about junk DNA? Yahweh needs to defrag something major.
30) Thus ignoring wars. The Census Bureau reported in 1890 that 98% of the US Indian population had been effectively liquidated.
31) Energy is conserved, ergo pressure is conserved.
32) Oh, gee, I see they haven't been to South America; there are 40,000-year-old archaeological digs there. Or to Sudan or Ethiopia. Of course, they're using the Egyptocentric Diffusionist Chronology of Civilizations (EDCC,) which says all culture came from Egypt.
34) Forgot about GRAVITY!
35) So what? The Bible also describes giants and chimera.

Albion

Considering the opinion most creationists seem to have of the Catholic church and the Church of England, I think it's interesting that they co-opt members of those churches when they want to generate lists of impressive-sounding names as "creation scientists."