What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?

Thank you, it gave me quite a laugh reading those arguments. However, I'd like to remind you of two things.
One, saying all Creationists use these arguments is what we call in Logic an informal fallacy of generalization, meaning that if some in a group say one thing, the whole group must also say the same. For I happen to know many Creationists who breach a bit more of the surface in this topic than those who say the arguments (if they can be called that) quoted here.
Two, arising from this generalization, you seem to be denoting the whole Creationist idea because of some Creationists' lack of intelligence. This is what we call in Logic an informal fallacy of ad hominem (or appeal to the man), saying based on someone's lack of intelligence or character, their view deserves no credit.
I believe it most advantagous to take a different approach to this topic. While believing our respective sides, all should be open-mined to the other's view, and open to seeing the flaws in their own. For what is debate, if not the search for the truth? And how is such a search to be accomplished, without the willingness of all to question not only the opposing belief, but also their own? Only when this state of mind is reached by all can true progress ever be made in science or debate.

---

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

Well said for the most part. But surely you would recognize that just as Creationism is not homogenus (not all the same), neither is Evolution. Some believe we came from sponges, others say RNA. Some subscibe to Gould's punctuated equilibrium, others say we have yet to find significant transitional fossils.I would agree that open-mindedness does not mean agreeing with the opposing view, hastily dismissing our own beliefs. Yet merely putting forward our own views will not lead anywhere. We have to be willing to do more than that, to recognize that perhaps our own beliefs are not set in stone.Also, when you say "supporters of science", I assume you are referring to (perhaps indirectly) Evolutionists, you must see that many Creationists see themselves as "supporters of science." I would say the real task in this debate is to examine the evidence we see, ask questions, and accept the strongest logical conclusion. Yet my point is, that perhaps the strongest conclusion is not exactly what we have always thought to be true, and we must be willing to accept what science and logic tell us to accept. That is what science is all about, is it not? Finding the truth in the world by examining the evidence, even if it means tweaking our own beliefs? Truth is out there, and we must do our best to find it, even if it is not what we thought was true to begin with. Would you agree with this?Finally to answer your last question, I'd like all views to be heard, and see if they survive the test of logic and science.

---

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

I have to say one quick thing before starting a new thread about my comment on abiogenesis. I did not equate evolutionists with abiogenesists, I sais some are. But some are not of course, and that merely goes to show my point. Thanks for the other comments though, they were most helpful.

---

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

I understand where you're comming from loudmouth, but you have to understand the Creationist mindset as well. A Creationist would believe (usually) that their God is omnipotent and living outside of time. Thus he created the chemical/physical laws you are referring to. From that premise, I think its easy to see the scientific hypothesis in the Creationists mindset, seeing that their God created the laws of science, and has complete power to do whatever he sees fit. Thats what I've gained from talking to various Creationist friends of mine, and I've also gained that my Evolutionist friends tend to agree with me.

---

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

Thanks Stephen for the complement. I learned to identify the logical errors from taking a logic class. We went through many informal fallacies (or sophisms) as well as formal fallacies, and learned to create arguments in different forms (i.e., syllogisms). As for a source, I am at a loss; our instructor used his own text and I do not believe he has had it published yet (if he has I would not know where to find it). About volunteering for judging, I would enjoy doing so, yet I am quite swamped in the next few weeks. But I'll contact you when I'm available, naturally. Thanks, Soracilla.

---

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

I apologize for my tardiness in responding to you, sidelined. Yet here it is. My point was merely to say that if the Creationist God is omnipotent, and created everything, than certainly he may change it (for all power really means all power). Thus with the premise that a God exists and he is omnipotent, I believe its easy to see a Creationist perspective. The real issue is to prove or disprove that premise, correct?
Also if I sounded proud I do apologize for that as well, I was just attempting to answer Stephen's questions.

---

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

Great point Ned, I was not in anyway trying to paint myself into a "God the Jester" position. I was merely saying that, from a Creationist perspective of God (or perhaps the majority of Creationists), there is a scientific approach to it. In addition, you presupposed that coming to an honest conclusion about the universe through science would mean coming to an evolutionist view, away from Genesis and Creationism or even Intelligent Design (at least I read it that way; correct me if I am mistaken). Actually, science has led many toward I.D. and Creationism, like Dr. Behe, of whom I'm sure you've heard, author of Darwin's Black Box. My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous, and really, one who believes that has no place in trying to make the other side convinced of Evolution, if he himself will not give opposing sides a fair hearing (for they've already ruled out any other idea save their own). In other words, why should the Creationist give an Evolutionism a thought, if the Evolutionist will not do the same for the Creationist (or vise versa, of course, for some Creationists are equally as guilty).

---

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

I have one quick question that came quickly to me while reading this. What do you define as "science"? Anyone can answer, I'd be interested to hear everyone's views on it. Thanks.

---

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

It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that most of you see science as not merely the investigation and testing of empirical data to find truth, but rather to find a material explanation for what we see. But how can it be shown that only the material exists? That is bordering on empiricism, which was greatly rejected by the Stoics in ancient Greece that asserted only what we experience can possibly be real. Yet how can that be said? Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that only that which is material and sensible is able to be real? That is precisely what I have been saying in many of my previous posts. I have seen this statement or ones like it many a time when browsing the posts here. But saying that gets us nowhere, show me evidence of these failures, for I've read many articles that claim to do so, yet with some critical thinking, prove incoherent. Once again, I'm open to change if you show me how they have failed.In closing, I find it hard to be convinced of evolution on this site, if all many of you say it how many times Creationism has been disproved. Articles, references, links, anything that would give some non-controvertible evidences for evolution would be greatly appreciated. If you present some actual pieces of evidence instead of saying merely how many such pieces exist, perhaps then I can be challenged of my view.
I'm not trying to be harsh, I just get a bit frustrated when you refer to evidences you have not stated, and I feel as if no progress is being made on both sides. Thanks, Soracilla.

---

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

On the contrary, Ned, I'd much rather have you pick your strongest arguments; its the challenge I search, not what I am already familiar with. I want my view put to the test, you see, I want to see if it holds up, if it doesn't, then I'll forfeit it.

---

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

That was exactly my point, hitchy. Thanks . You see, you're dismissing an immaterial thing to be reality, and retreating to a subtle version of empiricism, saying that only what we can see and hear and touch is reality. But can you prove that? Reason tells us no, you cannot make a definitive statement ruling out intangible things from reality. If I am mistaken, and you have a proof of a purely materialistic world, do share.

---

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

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

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

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