Not to discourage any attempts at humor, but your post has a strong undertone of seriousness that's worth addressing.
The dearth of nominations for Post of the Month by Creationists is one that Creationists should be striving to remedy. Such posts should possess certain significant and important qualities (e.g., cogency, insight, clarity, novelty of approach, etc.) that are so obviously and overtly present that even those who aren't the author himself can recognize them. Such posts often make one say, "I wish I'd said that," and if the next thought is "Oh, I did say that," then perhaps a Post of the Month nomination shouldn't be considered.
The fundamental goal is to persuade, and you can't persuade if you have no evidence. And you'll really have trouble if you're unable to hide the religious origins of your ideas. So much of Creationism boils down to, "Evolution is wrong, biology is wrong, geology is wrong, radiometric dating is wrong, cosmology is wrong." And so forth. It's as if Creationists believe that all scientists not working on new TV's or computers or fabric softeners are total nitwits.
Creationists compound the problems inherent in such a myopic approach by refusing to offer any theories of their own that are consistent with the evidence. They instead simply become more detailed in what they won't accept. For example, radiometric dating is wrong, but at a more detailed level physicists are wrong about decay rates, mathematicians are wrong about the analyses, geologists can't properly collect samples, and all the correlations are a coincidence. Almost the whole of Creationism consists of "This is wrong, that is wrong, it's all wrong." Their great failure is not that they cannot support these positions with evidence, though of course they can't, but that at no point do they ever get around to arguing, "It happened like this, and here's the evidence that makes the case."
So if you're frustrated about the lack of Posts of the Month for the Creationist side, realize that it's inherent in the Creationist position. Without evidence you can't persuade, and unpersuasive posts are unlikely to get nominated.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
