I’ve investigated the creation science theories enough to know there’s holes in those theories you could drive a bulldozer through, and plenty of deceptive arguments and questionable evidence used to try and justify them.
Let me just give a brief but lengthy synopsis of what I've found when Evos have presented their 'best evidences' for macroevolution over the years, and you tell me which has the bigger 'holes'- remember, these are the 'best' arguments for Macroevolution- I'll present it with the claim first in red, and my response after I investigated the claims for myself- NOTE the intentional deceits that went into the claims for macroevolution as well, and then get back to me and tell me again how ID is being deceitful when they present the EVIDENCE that refutes the evo's claims: (I'm sure you will just ignore this post altogether or at worse- simply deny the deceits made by macro's- but here it goes)
1:We can witness evolution in the lab. Eukoroytes and prokaryotes are an example of macroevolution: No, no they are not- but amazingly, it is STILL taught in schools that they show 'evolution in action'- EVEN AFTER getting caught and exposed evos STILL present them as 'evolution in action. prokaryotes, it turns out upon carefuly examination, engage NOTHING more than a symbiotic relationship with a host with euko's- pure symbiotic relationship- nothing more- but this was, and still is presented as 'evidence for macroevolution' today
2: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of macroevolution: Nope- sorry, wrong again. It is well known that bacteria are able to laterally transfer genetic info between their OWN KIND, and that combining genetic info from one and another, a bacteria is able to handle many stress situations most species can not- but they REMAIN their own kind- nothing NEW is gained- Bacteria are precoded to be able to utilize this unique ability seen only in bacteria.
3: 'Feathered Dinos' show a link between reptiles and birds: Bzzzt- Those aren't feathers- they are degraded scales- Scales when they degrade show a slight resemblance to feathers. As well, they lacked the actual characteristics of TRUE feathers, and could not possibly have sustained flight EVEN IF the reptiles magically evolved the many other absolutely necessary bird features such as avian lungs, avian breathing tubes, avian sternums, avian bones, avian flight muscles, avian wings etc. For which there is zero evidence to support- just wild assumptions about 'missing evidence'. Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn't infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth etc- this would still be a LONG way off from establishing a link between birds and reptiles.
4: Mutations that cause sickle cell anemia show a 'rise of new info, and show macroevolution: Bzzzzt- wrong again. LOSS of info is the exact opposite for what Macroevolution needs. As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works. Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment. There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters, and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution. (You'll note that this statement will arise quite often, as it is KEY to understanding just what exactly separates macroevolution from micro evolution)
5: The fossil record for the evolution of land dwelling hearing is the most complete and settled scientific evidence we have and clearly shows evolution in action: Bzzzzzt! Wrong again. Have any of you even bothered to examine this ridiculous claim? Have any of you even bothered to look at the chart and investigate the matter? Seriously! This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught! But nope- it's still presented as 'the best and most complete' example of evolution in the fossil records.
Where to begin... The chart shows the supposed movement of jaw bones in fishes to the inner ear canal, but when you examine the chart you will note that #1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the 'earliest' fishes to land animals, #2, there are gaps of millions of years between the supposedly closest related species- who's to say those jaw bones didn't move back the other way in species not yet found in those millions of years gaps? #3, the 'link' between the water dwelling cynodont, and land dweller show skulls the SAME SIZE- this is a blatant intentional MISREPRESENTATION! The water dweller that is supposedly related to the land dweller is the size of a RAT while the land dweller is the size of a HIPPO! These two are related? And supposedly show a nice neat flow of jaw bones to the ear? How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they? It is ridiculous to think that the scientists thought we'd be so stupid as to not notice this glaring deceit! (I've spoken about this chart in depth elsewhere here on FR- but this is the crux of the issue)
6: Apes are related to humans because 'our genomes are very similar'. Bzzzzt- this 'similarity is dropping more and ore the more we look into this supposed link. As well, the differences are in the billions, something for which Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively 'short' period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically. (This category also involves many claims of 'missing links' which when examined turn out NOT to be as 'settled' as some claim them to be, and also turn out to be either fully ape, or fully human, with one category, Ergaster, not even being a legit 'category' but none-the-less it's given as an example in the nice neat little charts which again are intentionally deceitful) (I'll not go into this one further as this has been discussed ad neauseum many times here on FR- Let it be known that there is WIDE disagreement even among secular scientists about the classifications, and let it be known here that there is a WIDE variety of human skulls even among modern day beings, but this is NEVER discussed because evos desperately wish those 'missing links' to be 'transitionals' and won't cede that they could be deformed skulls, and let it be known here that MANY of the 'examples' of 'missing links' have themselves, many missing parts for which inventive imaginations simply draw in the huge blanks)
7: Natural entropy isn't a problem for Macroevolution because we live in a open system, and in open systems, there are examples of processes which 'violate' the entropy rule (Creationists don't really understand the second law): HUH? What a crock! First of all, those processes that 'violate' the entropy rule are STATIC processes such as snowflakes forming simple geometric patterns that follow geometric rules! EVERY other system, especially living systems, is STILL subject to the second law, and in an open system, things are even WORSE for them! Crystal growth is a lame example of this 'violation' when it comes to living systems:
1) Evolution calls for the development of life itself and subsequent life forms from a purely natural process. Life does not function without the strictly controlled conversion of raw solar energy into useable energy. What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?
2) Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. What specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes have led from zero genetic data in raw matter to the vast array of voluminous genetic data inherent in living organisms as we know them? [Link: TRUEORIGINS]
Be sure to read that whole exchange, because it goes to prove just how deceitful evos are when it comes to waving away SERIOUS problems associated with Macroevolution. Creationists understand the second law just fine thank you, and it is quite obvious after reading that exchange that it is the evos that don't understand it despite their stubborn insistence that they do.
8: Tiktaalik shows transition from water to land: Bzzzzt- Tiktaalik does no such thing- it is a lobe-finned fish- nothing more! The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish's weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom. These lobes are used not for scooting along the bottom as once thought, (and claimed, and taught in schools) but for unique maneuvering while suspended in the water. While the fish did have a separated head, unlike fish, this doesn't show anything but that it was a unusual species of fish- extrapolating it to mean it was a 'transitional' is a statement of devout a priori assumption that fish became land dwellers. We know today that many fish have unusual fins, but they are still fish and could NOT survive out of water- Stating otherwise is a religious statement, and NOT a scientific statement
9: I'll stop here for now, as there is much much more I've personally investigated and found to be severely wanting. your claim that there is 'plenty of deceptive arguments' in the creationist ID camp is a false one based on a few websites which do NOT represent the actual sciences of Creationism or ID no more so than the DECEPTIVE sites like Darwin Central, and Talkorigins and Panda's Thumb website represent true science. IF you wish to discuss actual evidences, instead of pointing out some inaccuracies on sites like answers in genesis (All the while ignoring the reams of factual science they do present) then let's discuss the actual evidence and see if they, the claims of macroevolutionsits, hold up- I've found that no! They do NOT hold up when examined closely, objectively, and carefully. When the layers of deceit are peeled off, we're left with anemic examples that fall apart. I'll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists 'best examples' a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related" (they do not, but show a bias of the virus for certain similar insertion points- period- and show common design, not common descent, and htere is MUCH that macroevos LEAVE OUT when makign htis claim- such as how similar species would be susceptible to very similar viruses seeings how there are millions of viruses bombarding every species, and it coudl very well be that the two species coexisting in the same region, fully formed, fully functional completed species of unique but somehwhat similar designs, woudl be susceptible to similar viruses- (this they will NOT cede- ever it appears) and Nylon degradation by bacteria show evolution in action- it does NOT and I'll show exactly why later- this was another highly deceptive argument put forth by macroevos which intentionally HIDES the FACTS of nylon degradation by bacteria- But you wouldn't;'t know this when reading the over-reaching, broad, deceptive claims of macroevos because they INTENTIONALLY misled everyone by NOT presenting ALL the facts)
We’re not talking ‘theories’ here Tactic- and you are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting Creationism and ID by tryign to extrapolate a few moot examples of mistakes or innacuracies posted by sites that do NOT represent the movement’s sciences, but rather simply report on the sciences, and you are trying apply these few example to the whole theories’ evidences and sciences. IF you are goign to simply wave away the whole of Creationism and ID based on the OPINIONS of individuals from lay sites that exist OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCES of the sciences of ID and creationism, then you are goign to HAVE to dismiss ALL sites like Talkorigins, Darwin central, panda’s thumb, DU and others- and MANY scientific journals as well which all have severely deceived, intentionally, and have voiced their OPINIONS that exist outside of the actual evidences.
We’re discussing hte actual evidences here Tactic- I’m not itnerested in your biased opinion of Creationism or ID- We ALL know how you feel about them- you’ve repeated tyour false claims many many times ghere on FR- what we’re discussing here however is the actual evidences and whether they hold up under careful objective scrutiny or not.
IF you want ot discuss which sites are more intentionally deceitful, then start another thread and I’ll be happy to point out the blatant intentional deceit of sites like Talkorigins which claims to have 29 evidences for macroevolution but for hwich every one of htose 29 ‘evidences for macroevolution’ was ripped to shreds by Timothy Wallace at TRUEORIGINS who monitors the DECEIT of Talkorigins and exposes them as the chal’rlatans they are, and we’ll see just which sites are really deceiving people- Your claims of ‘deceit’ at sites like answers ion genesis are based on actual deceitful ‘rebutals’ which have been exposed over and over again as the lies that htey really are- so yeah- you wanna start an argument about who is being intentionally deceitful, then start another thread- your argumetns will be destroyed in a quick hurry!
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp