Here's a couple for you too nature:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Straw man argument)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
and

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.[2][3][4][5]

The term pseudoscience is based on the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and science (derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge). The first recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie[1] considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.

The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[6] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[7] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[8] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, eugenics, quackery, the occult, and superstition.[9] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[10]

Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[11]

Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.
----

Your hero and his website have nullified their own credibility just fine without my help, I'm happy to say. Does this mean I can look forward to you acknowledging the questions I provided about Mortenson? Feel free to refute any of what I wrote there if you're feeling up to it, I am really interested to hear how having a Phd in history of geology qualifies anyone to lambast others across the multiple fields that comprise evolutionary science. All that I ask is you leave the circular-reasoning at the door, quoting AiG as supporting evidence doesn't work if AiG validity itself is in question. But then I'm sure you'd provide just another YEC website... *yawn*

I digress - I just think it's funny that you keep quoting data from them as valid proof for your positions, when they're anything but valid or proof.

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith..
Quite so and well said. :thumbsup:
BlueDevil Reviewed by BlueDevil on . Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5