Wednesday, 26 December 2007

Some Questions for Creationists

I sent an email with these questions to some local creationists (in York) on 7th December. No answers as yet.

Can anyone else help them out?

  1. I provided a lot of links to large numbers of different lines of evidence all of which support evolution - I look forward to your thoughts on these. [This was the 29 evidences for common descent here]
  2. I wonder if you could actually provide some positive evidence in favour of creationism? Scientific evidence which supports creationism and not just attempts to knock holes in the evidence which supports evolution theory.
  3. Please provide details of scientific papers stating there are no transitional fossils.
  4. What do you define as "transitional"?
  5. Where did you get your ideas from about the views of Gould? [He is practically a creationist, apparently]
  6. Can you back up your claim that "Most scientists correctly state there are no concrete examples of major morphological change in the fossil record."?
  7. Do you think all the scientific bodies I listed are all mistaken or do you think there is a conspiracy? [A list of all the academy of sciences from here]
  8. How do you explain that many of these folks are Christians and yet say you have no evidence to back up your view?
  9. Where did you get your opinion on Darwin from? [If he was alive today he would no longer believe in evolution]
  10. Will you be using this argument in future in light of the information I have provided to you? [I gave quotes showing his lack of faith]
  11. Where did you get the incorrect information on Schroeder's qualifications from? [Gerald Schroeder who can show me the truth apparently]
  12. Do you have a copy of Schroeder's book I could borrow? I would be happy to pick a science book to swap with you for a few weeks. How about "Blind Watchmaker"?
  13. Why is the idea that the laws of physics have not changed unreasonable?
  14. Which changes to which laws would you need to see so that they all fitted in with your particular interpretation of the bible?
  15. What would the various constants need to have been and how much and when would they need to change to match Genesis and yet still give us the measurements we see now?
  16. What mechanism for this change do you have in mind?
  17. How could we test this hypothesis?
  18. What Predictions does it make that we can test?
  19. Why would you think that such changes would actually match your version of an interpretation of the bible and not some other religions take on the beginning of the universe?
  20. How does your model explain the abundance of the different chemical elements we can detect today?
  21. How does this fit with the CMBR we can detect?
  22. Do you criticise science for being unchanging dogma or for changing as and when new evidence comes in? Please pick one.
  23. What is your best bit of evidence to support biblical truth?
I'm not holding my breath.

No comments:

Post a Comment