More interesting links (missing from the "Welcome" thread)

TalkOrigins
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Creation "Science" Debunked by Lenny Flank
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/

No Answers in Genesis
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

Links on Of Pandas and People, an ID "textbook" that prominent ID-ers wanted to be taught in schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21

National Center for Science Education, the leading anti-creationist organisation in the US
http://www.natcenscied.org/

British Centre for Science Education: The Fight Against Creationism in the UK
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/

The Panda's Thumb Blog: A Virtual Watering Hole for Anti-ID-ers
http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Talk Reason
"This website presents a collection of articles which aim to defend genuine science from numerous attempts by the new crop of creationists to replace it with theistic pseudo-science under various disguises and names. Talk Reason is designed to provide a forum for articles arguing against modern creationism in all of its forms."
http://www.talkreason.org/

Major creationism and ID in schools court cases:

The Arkansas Case: Opinion of Judge Overton
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

The Louisiana Case: Supreme Court Decision
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1618/Edwards_v.html

The Dover Case: Federal Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

Links about Ken Ham's Creation "museum"
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_ham_museum.htm

Creationists and the religious right
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm

And in response to the Kent Hovind video links posted by Russ:

"Unmasking the False Prophet of Creationism: Kent Hovind" by Barbara Forrest
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn...king_the_false_prophet_of_12_30_1899.asp

"The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read: A Reviw of Kent Hovind's Thesis" by Karen Bartelt, PhD
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

"Is Kent Hovind a Liar too?" by Ian Wood. Includes attempts to take up Hovind's "$250,000" challenge
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kent_hovind's_lies.htm

Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index, in response to Hovind's 1995 seminar, and including Kent Hovind's reply
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html

More details about Kent Hovind's "$250,000 offer"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html


NOTE TO CREATIONISTS: No saying "It's all lies!" without first looking at a link and then specifically explaining what you think it is lying about.

NOTE TO CREATIONISTS: "Quotes from Linda":









<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Enjoy.

Note to Bex: Please look at the title of this thread. Russ posted creationist links in a locked thread so I thought in the spirit of fairness I'd post links to evolutionary science sites in an open thread. That's the sole purpose behind this. If you'd like to debate a specific point with me I will do so without letting a link do all my talking.

Just having a joke Linda, no hard feelings. I wanted to make a point due to your past comments on this very way of debating. You've made your point <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What do we get if we expose a lie? At a nickle a pop I could get quite wealthy off Talkdeceptions.

More unsubstantiated remarks? Present some evidence that evolution is a lie. I've been waiting.

In exposing a lie, you would have to be able to substantiate that it is, in fact, a lie. That would require you to show two things:
1. The information is factually incorrect.
2. The author of the information, knew it was factually incorrect yet presented it as if it were factually correct.

I certainly would not pay you a nickel just for your claim that something is a lie, since you could be in error. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

BTW: If you could show that evolution is incorrect, you could become quite rich. The Nobel Prize is worth $1,000,000.

Long as people are prob'ly gonna wander in, how 'bout they get something worthwhile for their trouble?

The Magnificent
DINOGLYFS - DINOLITS,
A Finnish creationist site. The dinosaur extinction myth gets hammered here. So will your machine if you're on dial-up, but it's worth it.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinoglyfs.htm

Have you considered that people might have been coming across dinosaur fossils for as long as people have been around?

I was too busy considering how agriculture could fail to involve biology & genetics. Gotta say I'm a bit incredulous.

The Eye Design Book is something everyone should check out. Lots of information, and you can click on pictures to get a good look. I'd try to tell you all how good this is, but 1: you wouldn't believe me and 2: I'd be making an understatement.

I'm looking it over and I have to say.....it's a real "eye opener" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I'm enjoying this. Thanks CTD <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't regret one penny of the money I spent on In the Beginning was Information by Werner Gitt. This book, and other writings are now available free online!

Yes, it is one incredible book filled with baseless assertions like "Most living creatures and some plants have individually designed eyes."
An of course, "Obviously, it has taken more than natural selection of random events to produce and optimize so many different eye designs. In technology work, increasing complexity often requires more intelligence, planning, and power." Yet he doesn't back this up with anything at all.
Here's another interesting assertion: "If one takes the probability of each necessary cell occurring, it approaches a near impossibility, but putting an eye together with the cells as a given or starting point also provides a near impossible probability." This claim is made but no supporting calculation or baseline information is provided. I would hope that he is not relying on that probability fiasco that Bill Dembski put out.

See how good it is? Just look how much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" /> it can stir up in an evolutionist!

I only know of one type of eye design this site lacks. I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet, but I may try again. It's a periscope design with reflectors, and it's found in the deepest parts of the ocean where there's almost no light.

Lest anyone undertake to debunk talkdeceptions, a pretty thorough job's already been done. No need to waste very much time.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/FABNAQ#Observations_that_change_creationism

There are a couple of other pages like these. Pretty sure AIG has one too. But I'm too lazy to hunt them up just now.

OK, Thanks for the links.

I'm putting this on the welcome page.

Also, I'm still open if anyone would like to take a stab at countering any talk origins claims, taking a different approach may reach people that are not reached elsewhere.

We could also post links to the creationwiki for each companion rebuttal we write.

So, if anyone is fed up with talk origins and sees through the lies, feel free to write a rebuttal and we'll build our own list over time.

Thanks!

I find it amusing that many of their lies are so polywrong they can be debunked different ways using independent lines of reasoning.

While this is a weakness, it is also a trap. To look at a polywrong argument, spot an error, and assume the rest is valid would be to fall into the trap and accept untruth as truth. One should be careful not to fall victim to excessively stupid arguments.

Then bring one up and show us how easy it is to debunk it. I believe that is what Russ is asking you guys to do.

Be patient. We're busy people.

You work for the government. You have free time.

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/

The Edinburgh Creation Group has some of the best videos I've ever seen on origins research & related controversies.

I disagree with a couple of points:
1. There's no such thing as 'natural selection'
2. The "geologic column" cannot be salvaged and employed as a shortcut by designating certain evoages as pre-flood, flood, and post-flood.

Nobody's perfect, and these are minor disagreements. They do an outstanding job explaining things so that everyone can understand, and doing their homework. Please try to make time to see what they've got. I watched over half the list back when I could watch videos, and the chances of disappointment are quite low.

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video.php

Looks good. I'll have to make some time to check it out.

I'll also post think on the welcome page.

Thanks.

Oops. It's already there.

I thought it was somewhere - guess I forgot where to look. Kinda feel silly, with the name of this thread & all.

Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood

Twentieth-century geologists taught the familiar maxim: "The present is the key to the past."

But now that catastrophic processes are widely employed to describe the strata record, twenty-first century geologists are wondering whether "marine flood sedimentation is the key to the past."

Geological strata and their contained marine fossils provide critical evidence that the ocean once covered the continents, even the highest continental areas. Extremely widespread strata blankets argue for an intercontinental or global flood.

The Sauk Sequence extends throughout North America and appears to extend into Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence also covers much of North America and may well extend into Europe and Africa. There are also intercontinental redbed sequences, intercontinental tuff beds, and coal-bearing strata cycles.

Granular, water-charged sediment flows result in very rapid stratification. Dilute flows produce thick sequences of plane beds, graded beds, and crossbeds by sustained unidirectional flow. Such flows also produce thick sequences of hummocky beds by sustained bidirectional flow.

Concentrated sediment flows produce thick strata sequences by abrupt deposition from liquefied suspension or evenly bedded strata by flow transformation to a tractive current.

These and many other obvious processes are leading many geologists to construct a global flood model for earth history.

Continued: http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation

There is extensive evidence for the layers of strata in the geologic record being laid down very quickly, similar to the processes observed when Mount St. Helens erupted. Rapid global formation of sedimentary rock beds is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old.

The major formations of the earth’s crust are sedimentary rock beds. These were formed by rapid erosion, transportation, and deposition by water. There is no global evidence of long periods of time between these layers or indications that these layers took long periods of time to form.

For example, sandstone is a major feature of the lower part of the Grand Canyon. The same rock layer is found in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, the Midwest, the Ozarks, and in northern New York state. Equivalent formations are found across wide portions of Canada, eastern Greenland, and Scotland.

The flood that covered the earth formed the large geological structures that we can observe today.

Continued: http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/

For a response to these posts, see the Global Flood thread.

For a response to Global Flood thread, see these videos

I thought I posted this before, but I don't see it around. This is an outstanding book, and free!

http://www.creationism.org/books/CooperAfterFlood/index.htm

Early on, it made for slow reading, but once it gets going, you won't want to stop.

What it's about: everyone lets on the Hebrews are the only source for knowledge for things that happened in Genesis. Not so at all! Others know which of Noah's sons they come from, and have independently maintained their histories. This is stuff no evo-pusher in his right mind wants you to find out.

I have found out the name of the critter: the brownsnout spookfish. Links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...rrors-to-see-through-deep-sea-gloom.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...of-the-deep/story-e6frg6so-1111118511683

And the best:

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/spookfish_eye_uses_mirrors_instead_of_a_lens.php

Finally, for comedy, you can watch clowns congratulate each other on having the blind faith to say "evolution did it". Would such congratulations be in order if this weren't an amazing design? Would there be anything to brag about?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3504

(If this last link doesn't work, try googling and take the same link from the google result. Sometimes you have to do that for some reason.)