Evolution.

Much of what you are telling us seems to bear a remarkable resemblance to much of Kent Hovind's material. I suggest that you go to this site
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.aspThe site is a Creationist web site which tries to refute evolution and provide evidence for Creation. The page I've given you, brought to our attention by AbbyLever, refutes much of the evidence used by Hovind and many of the examples you've used are covered there.Incidentally, I'm an evolutionist, but I thought that directing you to a Creation site might help you to understand some of the junk that has been used to discredit evolution and is now itself discredited.

Forget what you've read that comes from Kent Hovind. Start with a totally clean slate. Get rid of preconceived ideas and things you thought you knew.Now, when anyone tells you something about Creation or evolution, don't just accept their facts as facts. Check them out for yourself on the web. Be wary, however, as there are loads of junk sites on the web. Just because its on the web doesn't make it true - for example "Alien Abduction". Use sites which are educational - some of the university sites are a goldmine of good information which has been peer-reviewed for the most part.Start off by finding out exactly what science considers "evolution" to mean. You have to get this right in order to argue against it or for it. Find out what science uses as the definition of natural selection, as the definition of species, as the definition of selection pressure. By the end of that you should have a good idea of what science is actually claiming. There's no point in you arguing that my pet isn't a duck when I've got a pet hamster. Proving my pet isn't a duck doesn't make me wrong because I never claimed it was a duck in the first place! Does this make sense?Edited to correct spelling mistook[This message has been edited by Trixie, 04-02-2004]Mistake, dammit, mistake! [This message has been edited by Trixie, 04-02-2004]