Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[SteelCurtain]

Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

This is because you don't get to dictate new rules for a centuries old game, then cry when no one will let you play.

The very definition of science is looking for natural explanations for observed phenomena. Creationism is claiming that God did it. It is not falsifiable, doesn't explain observed phenomena, can't predict future phenomena, and isn't supported by the preponderance of evidence. If you would care to refute ANY OF THESE CLAIMS, please do so.

If you try to publish papers in a peer reviewed scientific journal without following the rules, you get fired. Sternberg published Meyers' paper in a peer reviewed journal, without letting any associate editors review it. If he had done this with ANY PAPER, he would have gotten fired. You know why? Because men stake their academic credibility on being a peer in one of these magazines. That might not mean very much to you, but it means a lot to them. If something gets published in one of those journals, it means they, as the reviewing editors, signed off on it and could not falsify it. Sternberg published a paper promoting ID that they didn't even get to see.

Do you see what creationists, over and over again, have to do? They have to lie and cheat and use other people's names incorrectly to promote their message.
Here's another perfect example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_N...ce_Allowed

Charles Darwin quotation issue[edit]
In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[28]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the subsequent sentences in the book state:[28][71]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.[71][72]

According to John Moore writing in the National Post:

Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him, we are sorry; we don't mean to diss Darwin."[73]

And you, yet again, lie and misrepresent facts here. This is becoming a trend, huh?