"I can't figure out how you could have read that post and *not* understood "where I got that number"."
Ok, so the link at #864. But I've been skipping the long posts tonight, as I mentioned to you earlier. I honestly didn't see the link, or I would not have questioned your number.
Taken note of it's post #864. Shall read it tomorrow or next month...Too many assignments.
===> Placemarker <===
Right. I'm going to be real gullible about this and take you at your word, and explain to you why it is important if you really want to understand what is going on to read as many of the links on Ichneumon's homepage as you can. Take as long as you need to think about them and digest them, and understand them.
Thing is, most people don't know much about science. So a huckster like Hovind can make convincing stuff up, squirt it out at a rate of 30 seconds/claim, and people who don't know a whole lot about the scientific field that Hovind is talking about think that he is putting up genuine objections to accepted mainstream science, that somehow the rest of the scientists have been too dishonest or stupid to see. Yet somehow even gradeschoolers can understand that Hovind is right and the rest of science is wrong.
I've got a shock coming for you now. Understanding science is hard. Really clever people like Ichneumon and VadeRetro and physicist (I don't include myself at that intellectual level) spend their *whole lives* studying this stuff. To get to a level of understanding where you might be able to contribute something new of any significance typically takes 10 years unless you luck into a new field. To adequately understand the rebutals of much of Hovind's material you need to put a whole lot of work in.
Alternatively you can just turn it into a "my experts versus your experts" debate. Evos aren't too interested in that as a subject, even though the experts who agree with evo outnumber those who don't thousands to one. We agree that the truth of a scientific idea doesn't rest on the number of supporters it has. But most of those who post here on the evo side have a considerable understanding of the science being debated. And it is painfully obvious that most of those who debate against evo have zero understanding of that which they reject.
Hence the endless canards surrounding the word "theory". The endless harping on about the tiny number of frauds and errors associated with evolution over the last 150 years. The endless quoting of scientists out of context to make it seem as if they reject evolution. The endless lists of pre-Darwinian scientists who didn't support evolution. The bizarre nonsense about geology and biology posted by those who have never spent ten minutes studying either subject. Interminable claims that pre-columbian europeans thought the world was flat. Claims that the inability of scientists to make life disproves evolution. Claims that if scientists could make life evolution would be disproved. Claims that there is no evidence for evolution (Ichneumon posted a ton of it, but you justed carried right on posting without pausing to read it. Isn't it more important to post accurately than to post quickly?). Claims that evolution is anti-religion. Claims that evolution is communist. Claims that evolution supports unfettered free-markets. Claims that evolution leads to a collapse in morality... All utterly without foundation.