Not so fast. The TVA propaganda is massive and it's difficult to find criticism of it. After all, we were told as school children that this was a model government project. Read the following for another perspective: http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/02/how-big-government-infrastruct

Notice that whenever the anti-Christian haters use terms like "ignorant" or "dummies," they are expressing their anger that not everyone is willing to be brainwashed like they were. The psychological phenomenon is called total propaganda. They consider themselves enlightened on the grounds that they think like the acceptable people think. Instead of thinking for themselves, they march lockstep with the propagandists who have taken over their minds.

(continued) I've accepted that they are almost certainly right, and I was almost certainly wrong. It helped to see my fathe, a PhD geologist, make a similar transition in his thinking over his career. It is always good to be open minded. Veracity is a moral character trait, that in the short run may be uncomfortable, but in the long run is always for the best. Let's continue the pursuit of truth.

One last comment. I have an advantage over you, and it is this. I have already been where you are. I used to be a dogmatci evolutionist jerk. I know all the evolution arguments. Moreover, I know all the psychological strategies used to effectively isolate oneself from facing serious scientific arguments against evolution. Only listen to evolutionists. Only engage amateur creationists, like the ones found on this site. Call them names. Declare that only evolution is science. But then I stumbled upon some real PhD research scientists who woke me from my dogmatic slumber. I could no longer pretend intellectual superiority. My silly arguments didn't measure up to their science. And after years of listening, and doing the, "Yeah, but..."

You see? I got suckered into playing your game, and now it's down to gain saying. This is a comment forum, and is not suited for proving or disproving complex scientific theories. It is unreasonable to expect it, which is why you demand it as a rhetorical device. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable for me to attempt to inspire further open minded research.

You asserted that something is true because a lot of people believe it. It is an actual FACT that that is errant reasoning. Therefore your conclusion does not follow.

I just did, but to be more specific, the rotor stator found in cells. Or the assembly instructions found in the DNA molecule. No one has ever satisfactorily explained how information evolved. How can non organic material turn into the most complex information coding in the known universe?

Oops, you made a mistake. I offered a couple of examples for you. But it must be reasserted that you offer no evidence that you would change your mind even if we collectively wrote hundreds of pages of such refutations. You haven't the slightest interest I knowing what's true. You're just making posts in the hope that it can make you feel better about what you already believe. While it might be entertaining for you, it isn't of much value. You still have to come to grips with this question: What if you are wrong? And that means acknowleding that it is a possibility in the first place. I hold out little hope for that.

Stupid spell corrector. It's supposed to read "to write that story," not "tourists."

But there's more. Even if the fossil was complete, the fossil didn't leave any ancestors to examine. Lots of imagination is required tourists that story. And it goes on with the silly story about whales having the vestigial legs. These bones support the reproductive organs and are not connected to the spinal column. And yet this is commonly used as an example that proves evolution. I could literally go on for pages with this stuff. You can find it for yourself if you want to. But I'm pretty sure you have a psychological barrier that keeps you from wanting to know about problems with evolution.

I suppose you are talking about evidence for evolution/creation, rather than my assertion about worlviews. Okay. Here's one: Ambulocetus. The claim is that this is a transitional fossil preceding a whale, but with legs. The fossil bits are from different strata and are too few to draw any such conclusion. Very creative people have filled in the missing bones and then went on to imaginately draw pictures of their imaginary transitional creature.