Spot the fallacy:
"The Archaeopteryx is not an example of evolution . It is a mosaic which has features from different types of animals, like the duck-billed platypus. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are fully formed. A valid transitional form would have half-scales, half- feathers; there is no such fossil. ?
More misrepresentation ?
The horse series is presently discredited and an "outmoded" exhibit was removed from the Museum of Natural History (See Milner's The Encyclopedia of Evolution). Among the difficulties with this series is that there are no horses with partial toes as should be observed in the smooth transition case and the series is in reverse order in South America! (See Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!).
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_valid.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_series.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
More silly assertions:
"Is your claim here that ONE mutation can convert a dog to a cat? No, there must be several in unison, that's why beneficial mutations are rare if they exist at all. "
"In how many steps? Are you suggesting that there is a gradual evolutionary pathway to the human eye? "
Yep: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
"Behe documents how even the development of a "light sensitive spot" is very complex. Just because various animals have the same feature implemented with a different degree of sophistication does not mean that one developed from the other! Each animal has just what it needs to function. "
Talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (mimicking Morris and Gish)
"Good. Can you assemble a bicycle with a blowtorch? You need DIRECTED energy. "
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/thermo.html
Giving science education a bad name:
"How is the answer "no" arrived at? You can supply the mathematics. Some of us creationists have advance degrees in these fields. The thermodynamics arguments against evolution are actually very sound. "
And a funny one:
> Sometimes, they'll stump you by asserting that, on
> his deathbed, Charles Darwin renounced his theory of
> evolution.
"The historical question of whether Charles Darwin renounced his theory does not determine it's scientific validity. "
Then why make this erroneous statement about Darwin having renounced his theory ?
More sad science stuff
"Radiometric dating is certainly fundamentally flawed if Noah's flood is true, as the basic assumption of finding an undisturbed sample can never be satisfied. It is also known that many radiometric measurements are discarded if they don't fit the anticipated result, and there are many cases of inconsistent results between different dating methods and results known to be wrong (such as old dates for recent lava flows). Invoking the flood and/or the concept of maturity, plus something like Humphreys white hole cosmology to explain cosmic phenomena appears to provide a reasonable defense of the young Earth position."
Notice the same old error about 'recent lava flows" ?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/hawaii.html
They were not dating lava flows but inclusions.
Science becomes faulty if faith becomes true ?
And yep more scientific ignorance:
Almost all of the young Earth evidence is actually evidence for either Noah's flood (such as the sudden appearance of advanced civilizations around the world at approximately the same time) or the quick formation of the Earth (such as radio halos). There are few global Earth processes that can be extrapolated back beyond the time of the flood (about 5,000 years ago); the slowing down of the rotation of the
Earth and the rate of lunar recession are a couple of good remaining arguments.
Lunar recession and rotation of the earth have long since been shown not to lead to a 5000 year old earth. Radio halos as well have been quite satisfactorily explained.
Polonium:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html
Moon recession/earth slowdown
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/rotate.html
So we see arguments that are based upon
1. non-science: 2nd law of thermodynamics
2. Issues science has already resolved: Lunar recession, polonium halos, rotation of the earth
See above for links
3. Ignorance of science: Radiometric dating, icecores, varves
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/age_of_earth.html
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
4. misrepresentation: No intermediates
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html
5. Non sequitors and strawmen
and bad science, bad science, bad science....
A final one, spot the fallacy:
"Experiments and knowledge to date demonstrate that adaptation has limits beyond which no more change is possible. Selective breeding of roses has never been able to produce a blue-colored rose. "
Shudder....