Replies

The rest of your questions I'll leave until I have access to better research resources (so I can pount out specific transitional species that have been found) or others answer before me, but I can address these right now.

2. The earth loses 1/1000 of a second in rotation per day. Rounding, this is slightly over 1 second every 3 years. If, according to evoultion theory, that assumes the earth has been behaving the same way for billions of years, and knowing a 24-hr day is composed of (24x60x60) or 86,400 seconds, about 260,000 years ago we all were living on an earth with a rotational period of 1 second.

From here:
"Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!

"The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs."

The calculations are shown on the webpage, follow the link to see them.

3. If according to evolutionary theory that the earth is billions of years old, and the mechanics of the earth operate today just as they have for billions of years, given the known, measured rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field, that if we calculate backwards 10,000 years, we come up with a field so strong that life on the planet would not have been possible.

The magnetic field of the earth is on a constant decay. The magnetic field oscillates and even reverses itself regularly, and its current decline is part of that oscillation, not part of an exponential decay.

Like I said, no understanding of science.

I would sugest alerting the media and the scientific community when you come up with these transitional forms, as you will be the first to do so. When you do present your research, you may not want to include Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Australeopithicus and all the rest of the so-called major finds, that have all been debunked as pig bones, chimpanzee bones, and combinations of human and animal bones. Funny that even though it has come to light that these scientists have either had to admit or others have outed them that they were deliberately crating a fraud, the textbooks never seem to be updated to make students aware of these facts.
I look forward to your forthcoming replies to the rest of the statements.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS - commonly know as "LUCY" - Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more ape-like than other australopithecenes.

In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features." On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johanson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus). However, there are conflicting reports as to whether Lucy did actually walk upright and there is also evidence that people walked up-rightly before the time of Lucy, disqualifying her as an evolutionary ancestor man (Parker, 1991).

APES UP FROM?, DONALD JOHANSON, "At any rate, modem gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday...., LUCY, p.363 (Seems this denies classic evolution to me, it has to be traceable back to a rock somewhere...)

On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, discoverer of the celebrated "Lucy" fossil, lectured on the campus of the University, of Missouri, Kansas City. In the course of the lecture Dr. Johanson showed a slide which suggested that Lucy's knee joint had an angle much like a selected human knee joint. In the discourse which followed the lecture the discoverer admitted that he had found that portion of the fossil 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24 to 1.86 miles] away. Anatomical similarity appeared to be his basis for placing it with the rest of Lucy's skeletal remains. Her arm/leg length ratio, listed at 83.9%, is admittedly based on an estimated leg length. The left pelvic bone is complete, but "distorted" according to her discoverer. Negative evidence relating to Lucy's claim as a genuine hominid continues to mount. Her chimp-shaped skull of only 400 cc's and many osteological features certainly indicate that walking erect was very unlikely. Possible erect locomotion is indicated by only one angled view of her pelvis, and the pelvis was distorted when found. A long list of ape features are indicated by the skeletal remains.18 This specimen had curved fingers and toes for tree climbing, an ape-type angle of the shoulder socket, a chimp-like iliac blade, an ape ankle bone (talus). The valgus angle of the knees is similar to the orangutan and the spider monkey, a feature which is also found in man. Strong chimp affinities are shown in her hip joint. She may well have walked with flat feet like the chimpanzee.19 According to J. Cherfas her ankle bone (talus) angles backward like a gorilla. This makes it impossible for her to locomote bipedally. Zihnman called our attention to the fact that there is astonishing similarity between Lucy and the pygmy chimps.20

18 - Cherfas, J., 1983. Trees Have Made Man Upright, New Scientist 97:172-178
19 - Ibid., p.174
20 - Zihlman, A., 1984. Pygmy Chimps, People And The Pundits, New Scientist, 104:39-40.