Best points against creationism

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Postby ukantic » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:34 pm

Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Best points against creationism

Postby Mr Goose » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:43 am

How about having some fun with the following questions:
1. If there was no death before the fall, why didn't Adam explode? (With all those bugs in him reporoducing in a short a period as 2-3 minutes and not dying he must have been either enormously fat or in agony before he quickly went bang.)

I must say that is a great one!

I have read many anti creationist responses before (and even have a copy of "The Countering Creationism Handbook" in the smallest room) but that is a new one.

Eden must have been a funny place; T-Rex digging for roots and exploding higher animals -well cool
Mr Goose
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:49 am
Location: Yorkshire

Postby Steve660 » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:21 pm

Mr Goose

You are a brave man. I prefer the written word to verbal debates, as in the latter there is no opportunity to check out the opponent's claims. He can therefore bullshit to his heart's content, secure in the knowledge that by the time anyone in the audience has gone away and checked his claims (and in practice few will bother) he will be long gone. Maybe worth pointing out that creationists love talks and debates for this very reason, but they hate the peer reviewed literature. They simply do not submit their claims to proper journals, instead publishing only in their own in-house venues. Science does not progress by debates, but by publication in peer-reviewed journals. On this basis alone what the creationists are doing is not science.

If you want to talk about non-technical aspects of creationism then exposure of their style and strategies is relevant. So, in addition to the point above, you can expose their infamous habit of "quote-mining", the numerous times they have been caught out lying (just Google on "creationist lies" or similar), their habit of using the same old discredited arguments, years after they have been debunked (I had to redebunk the Lucy's knee joint myth last week, for the nth time, and Paluxy still keeps popping up), the numerous fakes that they still continue to cite (Ica stones, Mexican figurines, leg in a boot "fossil" - John Pendleton's dinosaurs & humans talk on youtube is full of them), and so on. My personal favourite, being a Steve, is their boasting of the numbers of scientists on their side. The NCSE Steve's list is a brilliant response (I'm no. 660).

On the technical side, it would be worthwhile checking their websites, (eg. creationwiki) for their "answers" to your evidence, and then looking at the rebuttals on anti-creationist sites like That way you will be prepared should a creationist try to ask "awkward" questions.

Good luck and keep up the good work!
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Michael » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:45 pm

Dont forget

If the earth is over 50,000 years old creationism is a dead duck.

So give some geological examples, eg growth of volcanoes (I have some nice pictures of Mt St Helens looking into the crater
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests