# Two questions for creationists... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944 "2001-08-12T21:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/1 "2001-08-12T21:43:10Z")
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)? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/2 "2001-08-12T21:45:25Z")
Qualification of Q2: I mean a piece of evidence that constitutes part of evolutionary theory today, so not the Piltdown Skull or anything. ---
**Author:** ![Seraphim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Seraphim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seraphim)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/3 "2001-08-12T22:13:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/4 "2001-08-12T23:38:59Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/5 "2001-08-13T00:10:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*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? \*\* Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/6 "2001-08-13T00:38:38Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/7 "2001-08-13T00:51:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*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? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/8 "2001-08-13T01:22:25Z")
While Black Knight was certainly funnier, I think you did a good job of translation there Bearflag70. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/9 "2001-08-13T01:29:31Z")
**Darwin’s Finch** is right on. (Nothing of substance yet, I just want in on this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/10 "2001-08-13T02:27:45Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/11 "2001-08-13T03:17:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/12 "2001-08-13T03:50:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bearflag70 \* > \*\* > 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). \*\* For god’s sake, don’t let Airman Doors hear you say that! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/13 "2001-08-13T07:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*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? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/14 "2001-08-13T07:50:58Z")
Just to further qualify Q2; we’re talking about evolution of species, not the big bang, not biogenesis. ---
**Author:** ![walor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@walor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/walor)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/15 "2001-08-13T09:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > \*\*While Black Knight was certainly funnier, I think you did a good job of translation there Bearflag70. > > 🙂 \*\* I’ll second that Bearflg70. How’s the fuse? ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/16 "2001-08-13T11:16:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > **IIRC as it turned out, it was deduced \ the fractures (sometimes compounded by further impact) would closely resemble deliberate ones.** 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. Gp ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/17 "2001-08-13T17:11:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/18 "2001-08-13T22:28:09Z")
You’re joking, right? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/19 "2001-08-13T22:55:40Z")
If there is no creator, then all things, including natural selection, and our very thoughts, are a matter of boundless randomness, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/20 "2001-08-13T23:07:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*If there is no creator, then all things, including natural selection, and our very thoughts, are a matter of boundless randomness, isn’t it? \*\* 😕 is this in response to Q1 or Q2? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944.md?page=2)