The evidence for evolution is extensive. I honestly cannot be ****ed rattling off a tonne of stuff because you're a creationist, and as a result. Most likely a close minded religious zealot.

How did you get to the conclusion that creationism is true while evolution is not?

No, no, you have that backwards. You start with the conclusion that creationism is tue. The rest are just unimportant details - when in doubt, reference axiom 1. QED.

Their target audience isnt evaluating the ideas. Creationists want to be able to cite a controversy and since there isnt one (or not one most of us would understand, anyhow) they have to make one up.

Yeah sorry about that, I meant where did his belief stem from? Over religious nutter parents? Small over religious town? Backwoods Louisiana?

By actually looking at the evidence

you have got this idea that there are these religious zealots out there, when its really just a few guys and every group of people has got them

why focus all your attention on that like they are somehow the clear contrast enemy

there are plenty of rational scientists who support creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

just to investigate this further since everything else was pretty thoroughly debunked.

This site pretty much goes through it, i will paraphrase here.
http://www.oralanswers.com/2011/04/i...iter-of-water/

- A box of toothpaste says to call poison control when you swallow more than is normally used for brushing, not a pea sized amount.
- a pea sized amount contains approx .3mg fluoride
- a liter of water contains approx 1 mg fluoride
- a large stripe of toothpaste contains approx 2.25 mg fluoride.
- a toxic dose in a 150 pound individual is 5-10 grams.

sorry about that just i was just copy pasting things


There have now been 24 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. In the absence of iodine deficiency, another research team (Xiang 2003a,b) estimated that fluoride may lower IQ at 1.9 ppm, while a recent preliminary study (Ding 2011) found a lowering of IQ in children drinking water at levels ranging from 0.3 to 3 ppm. The authors of this latter study reported that for each increase of 1 ppm fluoride measured in the urine there was a loss of 0.59 IQ points. None of these studies indicates an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this affect. According to the National Research Council (2006), "the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence." Except for an early and small IQ study from New Zealand (Shannon et al., 1986) no fluoridating country has investigated the matter for themselves.

On December 7, 1992, the new Environment Protection Agency Lead and Copper Rule went into effect. It sets the MCL for lead at 0.015 ppm, with a goal of 0.0 ppm. Fluoride falls into the same high toxicity range as lead, and, like lead, fluoride is an accumulative poison. Nevertheless, the MCL currently set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (management, not their scientists) for fluoride is now 4.0 ppm — 267 times the permissible lead level. It was changed from 2.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm without any new evidence showing it to be safe at that level. This allowed some water districts to use water supplies that would otherwise be considered too toxic, and allowed fluoridators to claim a greater margin of safety. The ADA states that the "optimum fluoride level" is 1.0 ppm. Even that is 67 times the MCL of lead, and fluoride is the more toxic of the two elements. How could that be considered "a small amount" — or safe?

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

...proceeds to copy and paste the rest of his post.

With such high powered, scientific testimonies as:

"My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarized largely in the following points: the theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and every chicken was hatched from an egg. Hence, the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least."

Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A: God did it in 6 days

I was amused that the very first "rational scientist" I could find on that site confuses abiogenesis with evolution at the very start of posting a loopy, non-explanation of his belief in creationism.

just please go through this website
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

its an imaginary benefit for so much potential loss

It's not imaginary. There are many studies (contrary to what the fluoride conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) showing there are health benefits with small amounts of fluoride in the drinking water. The studies showing detrimental effects are predominantly in relation to areas with high concentrations of fluoride (many multiples above the recommended maximum).

You can suffer terrible health effects from sufficiently large doses of vitamins. That doesnt imply vitamins are bad for you.

Extra research is always good and there is a clear ethical argument against fluoridation. But the science is currently strongly in favor of fluoridated water being beneficial. The reason I mentioned this in the first place (the anti-vaccination crowd would have been just as good) was to highlight the pseudoscience tactics pursued by the creationists. They put out multiple websites, all furiously citing each other and cross-posting the same few, meagre articles supporting their views whilst dismissing anything which indicates health benefits from fluoride. (Generally, they just outright lie and declare that there have been no studies when there have, in fact, been plenty).

show me one

I should be clear that I'm not actually directing these comments in your direction, since your total lack of engagement suggests to me you have no real interest in learning about the topic. Furthermore, your unwillingness to post any actual argument but rather meet rebuttals with yet more nonsense posts is indicative of someone who knows what they're doing. However, since some people might genuinely believe the claims of the FAN and friends:

Here was a 2008 study in Australia. The recommendation?
Here's a 2009 European study which apparently doesnt exist. From the results:

There is tree ring data older then 6000 years. Ice cores too.

these have nothing to do with science
they arent actually testing anything

"METHODS: A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted using the terms Fluoridation [Mesh] OR "water fluoridation" OR fluoridation OR (water AND fluoride) and was run from 01/01/2000 to 17/10/2008 in Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in the Cochrane Library. The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) methodology checklists for systematic reviews. Websites of guideline organisations were also searched for relevant evidence-based guidelines, which were appraised using the AGREE instrument."

Then there's the marine fossils found on mountains.

OP, a fair number of creationists blow through here shouting that everything we know is wrong.

They are almost never capable of engaging the responses we give and usually cannot even compose a coherent paragraph. Then they leave.

Has any creationist been able to carry an argument here besides NotReady?

I dunno, they usually think that's what arguing is. If they knew how to engage evidence they wouldn't be young earthers. 'Cept NotReady, he's the man, but he's probably thrown in the towel and become an evolutionist by now.

Heh. You're not very good at this. It was a meta-study, which I found deliberately because that's what the "Harvard study" you produced earlier was.

Wait....*shocked gasp*....you mean reviews of current literature are only scientific if they show that fluoridation might be bad*? Who'd a thunk it?

* Not that the study you cited actually showed that, of course.

http://www.icr.org/article/7058/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...housands-years

except for the 24 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico

but nobody has to look at the studies

europe doesnt do it, their teeth are fine, we should stop just in case

its simple

If you'd like some direct studies. About five minutes of searching turned up the interesting fact (strangely contradicted by all of the anti-fluoride sites) that there has been no indication that fluoride is carcinogenic in humans: Here are some papers you can go and study, if you'd like:

• Wang, B. (1981) The relationship between malignancy and fluorine content in the drinking water in Xilinkuolemeng, Nei Menggu (Chin.). Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi, 3, 19-21
• Neuberger, J. S. (1982) Fluoridation and cancer: an epidemiologic appraisaL. J. Kansas med. Soc., 83, 134-139
• Chilvers, C. (1982) Cancer mortality by site and fluoridation of water supplies. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health, 36, 237-242
• Chilvers, C. (1983) Cancer mortality and fluoridation of water supplies in 35 US cities. Int. J.
  Epidemiol., 12,397-404
• Chilvers, C. & Conway, D. (1985) Cancer mortality in England in relation to levels of naturally
  occurring fluoride in water supplies. J. Epidem io 1. Commun. Health, 39, 44-47

You didnt cite those and they dont show what you think they do.
No, we should stop because it's unethical. We can't stop everything "just in case" or we'd be back in the stone age.

I agree that your argument is simple. It's also flawed.

Did not click links.