Arrowman

pseudobug, I know what you mean. Many is the thread that I've killed stone dead (hmm, that's poetry!) by just posing a straightforward, specific question and insisting on a specific, on-topic answer.

As a sort of hobby I am gathering a collection of "questions creationists can't answer" based on these experiences - question which I or others have posed, and which have never been answered - I mean, no answer has even been offered, let alone a valid answer. Here's a selection:

- Please cite evidence which would lead the objective observer, ignorant of the Bible, to conclude that the planet earth is approximately 6-10,000 years old. Characteristics of the earth which can be interpreted as consistent with a young earth do not qualify. We need evidence which leads objectively to the conclusion.

- Please describe the biological or genetic mechanism which prevents the development of biological diversity from proceeding beyond the "species barrier" (in other words, the mechanism which prevents microevolution from proceeding to macroevolution).

- Please define, in scientific/biological terms and to at least the same level of specificity as the current scientific definition of "species", a Biblical "kind".

- Please explain the sorting of the fossil record. In particular, please explain the continuous appearance and disappearance of thousands of species in the fossil record.

- Please state the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then state clearly and specifically how this law prevents the development of complexity in biological systems.

- etc; I have 15 in total so far. Further contributions welcome.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Occasionally, creationists will attempt to cite "positive" evidence for their claims. Stuff like moondust accumulation, continental erosion, human population growth, etc... are used to "prove" a young earth. But the arguments are so intellectually bankrupt, false, and misleading, that's it's no wonder they mainly prefer to stick to arguments against evolution.

Check this site for the various "positive" arguments. Every YEC should read this:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml</a>

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

ksagnostic

Hey, if you haven't done so yet, go to the top of the host page of the discussion board and and click the link to the Newswire. Then, click on "ICR's exhaustive list of evidence of Creationism" for January 28. It says it all.

Arrowman

To ksagnostic, or at least to the person who put that link on the newswire: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Quetzal

Dr. GH: I had the same reaction to that website you did - a lot of false comparison and strawman "evilution", and very little "theory". (Codemason, thanks but I'd seen that one before. ). However, if you look down at the footnotes, there are several supposed potential falsifications of the alleged, non-existent theory. The bad news for creationists, of course, is that all the potential falsifications have, in fact, been falsified! I wonder if they know that?

Quetzal

Not post slutting . <a href="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/creationism.html" target="_blank">Here's another "theory"</a> of creationism. Has anybody bothered to post a written refutation of this particular "theory", or do I have to start from scratch?