Replies

They do what?

It wouldn't do to post a rebuttal without someone posting the point being rebutted in response, would it?

Are you referring the inclusion of the following in the midst of the usual rant which omits all the facts that falsify it?

There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?)...

There may be none? Is he not sure? And where O where does this inquiring mind inquire why not? Where O where does this inquiring mind attempt to fit the lack of modern life in the Cambrian into creationism?

They don't do that. Your offered example isn't one, and how did that happen? Anyway, there aren't any. There are no creationists wondering WHY there are no lions and tigers and bears "Oh my!" in the Cambrian. There are no inquiring creationist minds. And there is no theory to fit facts into anyway. At least, there none that wasn't falsified by about 1831, well before Darwin published, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he couldn't find one great worldwide flood anywhere in the geologic column.

So the only questions creationists have are the ones fed to them by pamphlets. They parrot them, ignore the answers, and show up back again dumb as a stump the next day. This is the "real" science. It will teach us much.

To begin with, they do realize the alleged chronological record is anything but. perhaps you'll be good enough to point to anywhere in the world it exists showing older/less complexx to newer/more complex? And why your at it, perhaps you explain why the exact oppsite structure is often found? Absent the assumed geological chronology column, and it is absent, your point is meaningless.

Moreover, assuming for argument's sake it did exist as alleged, and Cambrian strata held older forms, it still would not support macroevolution in absence of solid and numerous transitional records. And it would still fit very nicely into the ID interpretive model. :)