napoleonherself | Also, I drove a bit today -- I got all the way up to 50mph in that parking lot, and thought we'd die

Not as amusing as Chick tracts, but decent

Of course, stuff in the one against evolution is lies, lies, LIES.

Here is all I remember to argue against from the class I took something like two years ago:

"While twenty three different evolution theories contradict each other, Genesis presents only one creation story. God created heaven and earth."
................................um. No, you are a liar. Genesis presents TWO creation stories. TWO. MORE THAN ONE. And in each one, things are created in a different order -- making them rather different tales. Do we have different Bibles? Do I have the Unwashed Heathen Edition? Is that it?

"Using the potassium-argon method of dating, volcanic material in Hawaii that was less than 200 years old, tested at between 160 million and 3 billion years old. ("Journal of Geophysical Research", July 15, 1968, Pg. 4601)"
Again you lie. They weren't testing the 200-year-old lava to see how old it was! "Hmm, here's some 200-year-old lava, let's see how old it is!" No, they were testing olivine IN the lava to see if the heat of the volcano had managed to melt it down fresh, or if that olivine stayed solid even in the volcano. And what did they find? That it stayed solid, and thus that it tested as being very old. THEY WERE NOT TESTING THE FUCKING LAVA. THEY WERE TESTING DEPOSITS IN THE LAVA. You're either stupid or purposefully discarding the truth, and I think I know which one.

"Evolutionists argue that mutations due to the rearrangement in D.N.A. (Deoxyribonucleic acid) expressed in light and dark moths in England, proves evolution. However, they are actually two color phases of the SAME moth. Because of the smog in England, the trees have darkened and the camouflage that once protected the light moths from birds now protects the dark ones. The moths haven't changed, just the ratio of their population. ("Scientific American", Vol. 200, March, 1959. Dr. H.B.D. Kettlewell)"
Evolutionists don't claim they're not the same moths. Okay? They don't. What evolutionists say is that the ratio of the population has changed, providing an example of microevolution. MICRO. Nobody's saying "oh, the light moths and the dark ones are different species." The evolutionists are saying "the ratios changed and that's microevolution," and what most of the creationists are saying is "no it isn't there's no such thing," and what THIS stripe of creationist is saying "hey, they're the same moths, you liars!" Gods. READ YOUR FUCKING SOURCES BEFORE 'DEBUNKING' THEM.

"[...]'Ramapathecus Man' was proven to be an orangutan. 'Australopithicus Man' was dismissed as 'just another ape'. 'Piltdown Man' was a hoax, created by putting together an orangutan skullcap and a human jawbone."
Okay, so the first I've never heard of. The second, um, yeah, actually I believe it's still only the creationists who say it's an ape while evolutionists are still considering it not an ape. And Piltdown Man IS NOT TAUGHT AS REAL ANYMORE. IT WAS DISCOVERED TO BE A HOAX BACK IN THE TWENTIES. We know it's a hoax. Nobody says it isn't! NOBODY! As I said the last time I made a post like this, years ago, if you have to point to something that happened ALMOST A CENTURY AGO as evidence that the CURRENT THINKING is wrong, then what does that say about YOUR thinking?

Ahh, sweet, sweet straw-men arguments. They're so much more fun than genuine arguments. And they make you "right" so easily!