Creation Truth Foundation coming to town..

[Ceritus]

Dr. Thomas Sharp is heading to my town to give a lecture about the Truth about Dinasaurs which is made up of junk science to support Creationism.

His Doctorates is in Divinity and he is trying to lecture on the phsyical sciences.

Anyhow this is the first time I have had the oppurtunity within the local area to call out bullsh!t to a professional bullsh!tter.

Anyone have any resources they know of that would help me make a perfect arguement for this man? I already have been doing some homework but your input would be highly appreciated.

[JohnF_73]

I don't think there's such thing as a perfect argument against people like this.

Best bet is to try to get some advance copies of his speech or materials (like if he's made this somewhere before) and prepare your own rebuttal leaflets. Either blanket the hall before or after. And try not to be the only sane person in the audience. Go in a group, if you can, and scatter throughout the hall to prevent easy removal by security.

[CurtC]

First, find out what his arguments are. It looks like there's some information at http://www.creationtruth.com/program.htm , including a video.

Next, consult the Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org) page on Index to Creationist Claims and learn what they say. You might also want to read about Kent Hovind, who seems to supply a lot of the ideas to these folks.

Pretty much all the usual creationist claims are explained at Talk Origins.

[Zep]

Strong and accurate letters to the local newspapers and TV just prior to the presentation may serve to lay a foundation of incredulity and even comedic relief. Such that only the faithful kooks turn up - and you can't stop them!

The issue is not about creationism at all, it's about how much money these charlatans can rake in at each show from donations and merchandise sales. Crimp that source, and they will move on. It's the modern version of the snake-oil salesman's wagon.

[Eos of the Eons]

First I would address this lie:

"Much of what is in text books today and reported in the media is not strongly adhered by the scientific group,"
said Sharp. "Among scientists the talk is different, more towards proof of creation."

http://www.creationtruth.com/pdf/washington.pdf

Then this one:

it must be understood that fossils are made from a sudden death of a life form and burial by a watery substance.

That is not the only way fossils are "made". You can find dead things in amber, dead things in ice, dead things dried up in deserts, etc. Heck, you can have a dead decayed thing be eventually buried in sediment, and then fossilized.

And then the idiocy found here:

The fossils which have been found do not show any transitional form, but instead every fossil has been distinct in its species or type and is not a combination of two species

A species is called a species for a reason, and "transitional" is a rather subjective word in his crappy definition. We humans retain a lot of ape characteristics (thumbs, forward facing eyes, one pair of mammae, etc.) , but are we a "transitional" species? No, we are part of our own, but also are primates. Aw heck, we may be a transitional species, but that remains to be seen. Almost any species can be a transitional species, depending on where it sits on the phylogeny tree. Most "transitionals" are beat out by a survivor of a species with the successful characteristic though. Any one species out there now may be a transitional when exposed to some hardship, but we won't know which animals in a group will survive until the time comes and we see what surviving organism emerges to then have some offspring have a great mutation to cause it to have some advantage, and then have something else happen until we finally see a new species. In all that, what are chances one of those animals will be fossilized and we can conclusively link it as a transition to some current surving species? We can only see the evidence in every living creature that we had some ancestors down the line, and then find some evidence of a transition. One for humans is Homo habilis. How can he so intentionally boggle the supposed definition of "transition"?

They also drag out the old Piltdown hoax, and play down how that was rectified, and not left as a fossil on the phylogeny tree. I guess one bad apple make the rest bad/suspect? Not in this case, but that doesn't stop them from propping it up as a strawman.

Stawmen. That's typical. A whole stupid strawman strewn lecture.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, he thinks that dinosaurs are lizards (http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2005/05/05.html), conveniently ignoring the fact that their legs go directly beneath them, which is the identifying characteristic of dinosaurs.

As for the "no intermediate forms" bibble, you might try looking at the article Intermediate Forms Between Classes. I'm surprised that this lie hasn't died of shame by now.

I like this (http://www.creationtruth.com/pdf/evolution.pdf):

The Christian church and message is being attacked with diversity, inclusion, and tolerance.
This (http://www.moeh.org/main/fact.htm) is just weird. I know what I mean when I say that Albertosaurus is a close relative of Tyranosaurus, but what the hell does he mean by it?

And why does he identify all the fossils as being 10,000 years old? Surely no YEC puts the Flood that far back?

[Mercutio]

Check your local library (or university library if one is available); ours has perhaps 2 dozen books on the topic. I had one in hand at a creationist lecture, and found it acted pretty much like a road map to his talk. If it is a good library, you might find a number to choose from, one of which might be just what is called for for this particular speaker.

[Oolon Colluphid]

If he is perfectly willing to admit that there are dinosaur fossils, ask him where are all the fossilized remains of modern humans. Point out that, while there are massive amounts of fossils of creatures which are extinct, contemporary creatures are conspicuous by their absence in the fossil record.

[homer]

I've had a look at some of the links in this thread and I'm amazed that anybody could accept such nonsense . You ( in the US) have some major problems here with religion . Mostly in the UK we rarely hear about wierd stuff like creationism , our religious leaders worrying more about women and gays being ordained . Our Muslim community have different concerns worrying about what women MUST wear or else, plus other stuff not so important .
If we were created why was it such a bad job? Why does my hair turn grey or vanish as I age? What idiot would create cancer , viral infections etc . What is the point of five toes when one big one would do the job ? Of course evolution has answers but a failure to explain absolutely everthing is enough to dismiss this and replace it with a theory that explains absolutely nothing .
Who or what created the creator and who created that creator and so on ..

[Dr Adequate]

"Much of what is in text books today and reported in the media is not strongly adhered by the scientific group,"

said Sharp. "Among scientists the talk is different, more towards proof of creation." Evolution is losing support among scientists

Another lie which should have died of shame, if creationists ever felt shame.

[H3LL]

Can someone ask him if it is christian to lie, cheat, decieve and cherry-pick data to suit their agenda. The judge's statement in the recent Dover trial would be a good source without getting bogged down in scientific jargon.