What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?

thank you for clearifying what i said about the nature of science.

Soracilla
Concerning this remark you made. You cannot find non-controverible evidence in any realm of human inquiry,however, this webpage does have a huge set of links to show the evidence and the observations that go into the theory of evolution. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm#EvolutionRead and enjoy then come back after you have gone through some of it and debate the issues.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Then why haven't you responded to my challenge in message 69?

Hitchy, They are science. Science is always somewhat inconclusive.And, of course, I work for Jehovah, who sends a spirit of delusion on all those who do not receive the love of the truth. As His servant, I delight in deluding those He hates. That's why you find my name associated with delusional.But, I couldn't be deluded. Too prosperous and fruitful.Stephen

Mammuthus,I think you are ranting, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you sure give a confusing picture of MN.If you say, "I choose life." a lot of what's going on here will be more understandable. Well, you have to mean it.Stephen

Okay, at first glance I am lead to disagree with all of those, assuming you mean by the second one changing of species, not in-species changes. So, please, do give your strongest arguments to support them and back them up with evidence.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Okay, here's two responses, Jon. One, you cannot prove that it could not have been miraculous. But disregarding that (which seems to be the easy way out), how do geologists know what the "signs" of a global flood is in the strata, having no prior knowledge of what a global flood would look like in the strata?

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Wouldn't it look like a regular flood? Being, as it is, the same water and all?What would you expect to be different? Flooding leaves specific kinds of sediment which geologists can recognize. After all it's not like we're saying floods never happen anywhere. And furthermore there's strata that we know can't be deposited by floodwater.

True. Of course, if you want to take that way out, that destroys the entire concept of "scientific creationism" and leaves no possibilities that your beliefs will ever be taught in U.S. public schools as science, and ends this topic (you could re-start it in one of the forums about religious faith), and leaves us with a "trickster God" or even a "lying God" who has deliberately set up the Universe so every test we can apply tells us that no global flood happened. Very few creationists take that way out. Well, for one thing, there's no reason to believe that a global flood would have any effects that are qualitatively different from a local flood. E.g., a global flood would leave a global sediment deposit. We don't see that; there's sediments all over the earth, but they are different deposits.Read the Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist link. He goes into great detail on how he knew there was no global flood, before Darwin and before radioisotope dating. See Problems with a Global Flood (Second Edition): Producing the Geological Record for a very brief introduction to the many features a global flood should produce that we don't see, and the many features that we do see that are incompatible with a global flood. See Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood for some detailed treatises on problems by an experienced oil geologist and former young earth creationist.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004][This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004][This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004]

This is assuming that the geological strata actually show set long periods of time. For instance a common rebuttal of that it the many fossilized trees we see that go through many layers of the strata. So, if you can prove that the strata actually represent set long periods of time, you might have a case for a flood only encompassing the known world at that time.Moreover, even if you could prove that, a universal flood would be much more destructive and chaotic than a simple local one (I would assume anyway, seeing that there would be a bit more water involved to move and destroy things). Therefore you cannot predict what it would do to the earth or if it would look the same as a small local flood.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Not an assumption ... a conclusion based on the data, a conclusion regretfully reached by the creationists geologists such as Hugh Miller, man who were desperately trying to believe in a global flood but too honest to deny the evidence. read teh link I supplied. Yes, it's a common attempted rebuttal, but it's sadly lacking. Fossils of any kind passing through strata are pretty rare, and those that have been found do not pass thorugh layers of strata that conventional geology claims deposited at separate times or over long perods of time. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/...lystrate/polystrate_trees.html (in which Andew MacRae discusses some findings on such fossils from 1868). Why not? Are you actually claiming that such a flood would leave no traces? No sediment layer? No great channels carved across the landscape? No erosion to a degree we see nowhere else? No worldwide set of jumbled fossils of the dead?It's certainly unique, no creationist geologist has ever dared claim such a preposterous idea!

Actually, they are relatively common, even according to evolutionist sources. (See this link, second section.) For a Creationist viewpoint, see this link, and tell me what you think. No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that such a catastrophic event could do who knows what to the earth, and to its strata and so forth. Perhaps, though, I speak out of mere ignorance, and I do apologize if that is so.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

quote:

---

I think you are ranting, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you sure give a confusing picture of MN.

​

If you say, "I choose life." a lot of what's going on here will be more understandable. Well, you have to mean it.

---

You may feel free to think what you like. However, you are not capable of scientific (and given your exposition on farts as evidence of demons) or rational thought. I don't think you have any grasp of science and certianly no concept of how to formulate scientific hypotheses. That you equate scientific exploration with some psuedo-moralistic search for the meaning of life emphasizes this point.

Replied to in Soracilla defends the Flood?, in a more appropriate forum.

ok, so your god spreads delusion on those he hates. i get that, that is not a problem. i am comfortable with being hated by deities. shiva is still pissed at me for my "meatless" lasagna!anyway, everything you say leads me to a few basic conclusions:1) you need professional help
2) your hubris blinds you to the truth that you say you possess
3) you are making up for feelings of inadequacy and/or powerlessness by trying to wield the sword of the "truth" that you "know" b/c it comes from your god (any truth other than yours is not truth)
4) you care nothing for the scientific endevours that have kept you alive up to this point
5) you scare me...i mean, you actually scare me. you sound like someone who would bomb an abortion clinic
6) you break some of the commandments in order to save others
7) you belong back in the middle ages
8) you need some professional help