I know . . . but I haven't read a single creationist claim so far, purporting to be scientific, that can't be refuted. I remember when I first joined the amalgam forum, hearing all this stuff. "How come no one has collected the $250,000 Kent Hovind says he'll pay to anyone who can prove evolution?" "There are serious flaws with radiometric dating." "x,y,z cannot have evolved because they are irreducibly complex." "Hitler based his views on Darwinism." "The odds of life forming are incredibly small." "Why don't we see fish changing into reptiles, reptiles into birds, etc today?" Now that I'm actually willing to discuss these things, there's no one around to do so. Hmmmm.

Do you know what else I've found? Most, if not all, of this stuff, comes from books, lectures, etc given by creationist leaders. If you challenge it, the person doesn't know what to say because they were just parroting something they'd read. Claythrow would probably not have mentioned Lucy several times the way she did if she'd been aware that this argument was debunked years ago.

I was wondering if I should take a chunk of the copy-and-paste texts given here by Russ and Claythrow and refute them point by point. Not difficult to do guys. But I don't know who would want to take the time to read it, probably not the people I'd be writing it for, and it would take up a lot of time. Still, maybe I will, if no one else here wants to talk . . .

Really though, I would honestly like to know -- does ANYONE here believe Noah and the flood and the ark, that the fossil record was laid down at this time, etc? Here's my own argument from incredulity. If someone here does believe it, can you give some reasons why?