Two questions for creationists...

  1. What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance? (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such.

  2. What is the shakiest element of the theory of evolution. (or perhaps the piece of evidence which has been most significantly misinterpreted)?

Qualification of Q2:
I mean a piece of evidence that constitutes part of evolutionary theory today, so not the Piltdown Skull or anything.

From what I gathered from my creationist friend, he keeps it tucked away in his closet. And no, he won’t show it to you, no matter how politely you ask.

How about scientists who declare that an arrow must be made by a man. If scientists does not allow a simple design to be created totally by chance, then why should I think that man was created purely by chance?


Attempting to figure out capacitor’s statement without judging it for merit…

  1. An arrow is a simple design; a human is a complex design

  2. If a scientist finds an arrow or other simple artifact, then the scientist will likely declare that the arrow was made by man (has a creator)

  3. The scientist will likely discard or fail to consider the possibility that the arrow was created by pure chance

  4. Simple designs are more likely created by chance than complex designs

  5. If a scientist is able to wholly discard the possibility that a simple design is created by pure chance, then the scientist should be able to easily discard the possibility that complex designs are created by chance… OR if a simple design must have a creator, then a complex design is more likely to have a creator

  6. Therefore, if the scientist concludes that an arrow (simple design) must have a creator, then the scientist should also conclude that man (complex design) also has a creator and was not created by chance

I blew a fuse… is this right?

How about this: if you can provide a mechanism whereby arrows can be created by “pure chance,” (an utterly meaningless phrase, by the way) then it will gain acceptance in the scientific community. Scientists have provided a mechanism whereby organisms, including man, could have come about. And it wasn’t “pure chance,” no matter what they teach in Creation School.

While Black Knight was certainly funnier, I think you did a good job of translation there Bearflag70.


Darwin’s Finch is right on. (Nothing of substance yet, I just want in on this thread.)

Somehow, I think we’re gonna be waiting a while…

Thanks, Freedom… someone has to play the “straight man” around here (and I mean that in the Abbot & Costello sense, not the Ricky Martin sense).

One thing I have never understood in the continuing struggle of the creationist lobby to avoid accepting what appears to me to be a perfectly rational explanation for the origin of species is the apparent disconnect between faith in divine creation and the experience of rural life. As we look around us we see numerous examples of the transformation of life forms by selective breeding, which is much the same thing as natural selection. In our own life times we have seen swine, corn (maize), soy beans transformed into something that our grandfathers would see as very different from the same species they dealt with. Clearly a divine will did not create the modern crossbreed market hog. Why is it so difficult to extend that experience over the ages? Recognizing that the modern hybrid corn developed from a wild grass cultivated by Mexican aborigines should not shake the foundations of the faith.

For god’s sake, don’t let Airman Doors hear you say that!

I’m not sure whether this is an answer tio Q1 or Q2, plus I would have judged this a little too close to ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’, but no matter.

Anyway, this is interesting, I can’t provide a cite for the following story, maybe someone else can, anyway:

Some archaeologists found what appeared to be flint tools amongst a pile of other flint debris, concluding that this was evidence that there had been a human settlement there at some point, they started to dig, but found nothing.
A geologist pointed out that the ‘flint tools’ could be natural formations, ‘no’ the archaeologists said, they have been deliberately split to form sharp edges and to fit in the hand.
IIRC as it turned out, it was deduced (from the arrangement of the stones, the copious quantity of broken but non-tool shaped flints there and the local geology) that what had actually occurred was at some point, a cliff of flint-bearing clay had eroded, over time, flints had fallen out of the cliff face and ended up in a pile, other flints falling on the pile would sometimes shatter them and ever so rarely, the fractures (sometimes compounded by further impact) would closely resemble deliberate ones.

OK, we’re talking about simple flint tools, not an arrow, but illustrates a point I think.

Just to further qualify Q2; we’re talking about evolution of species, not the big bang, not biogenesis.

I’ll second that Bearflg70. How’s the fuse?

Reminds me of the Clive James article written for Punch in response to the discovery of a flint adze at a (geological) level 50 feet deeper than thought possible…

[ precis ]
A (stoneage) man invents this new tool, the adze, and flushed with the giddness of his success, he takes it home to show his wife. In the time honoured manner of wives, she procedes to berate him for wasting his time “inventing” useless things when there are so many things around the house that need doing. The man, with heavy heart, goes outside, digs a 50 foot deep pit and buries the adze.
[ /precis ]

Tickled me when I read it…

On a serious note, I have sent the questions to Ms. Pixie who is a creationist (and a botany/zoology major) and will report on her respose.


How about a snowflake?
Look at one close up and its beautifully intricate.
Surely, God doesn’t sit around all day making them individually?
Yet they sure look created and beautiful.

You’re joking, right?

If there is no creator, then all things, including natural selection, and our very thoughts, are a matter of boundless randomness, isn’t it?

:confused: is this in response to Q1 or Q2?