Originally Posted by Ringman
You bring up the audience. Forget the audience. The problem is the Ph.D biologist could not rebutt Dr. Kindell.


OK, I'll forget the audience. Precisely on what point could the biologist not refute Dr. Kindell? Perhaps Dr. Kindell's point could be refuted or already has been refuted buy someone else. Until we know what Kindell was on about this is just an anecdote.

Quote
He does have an understanding of science. He is an example of why every year dozens of Ph.D level scientists turn from evolutionism to some form of creation.


Kindell is not an example of a Ph.D scientist turning from evolution. His biography shows no qualification in any life science and his Doctorate is in The Philosophy of Theology. He did apparently study something at the Institure for Creation Research (ICR).

Some of the other authorities you cited in the massive post on page 31 are:
Henry Morris - Ph.D in hydraulic engineering. Founder of ICR.
Duane Gish - Ph.D biochemistry. Vice-President of ICR.
Donale Chittick - Ph.D physical chemistry. Adjunct faculty member ICR.

From Institute for Creation Research - http://www.icr.org/tenets/
"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation".

Whatever the ICR teaches it is not science. Science proceeds from observation to conclusion. ICR and your authorities start with a conclusion of Biblical literalism and try to mangle the data to fit. They are preaching.

I will take a look at some of the individulal claims later.



One unerring mark of the love of the truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. John Locke, 1690