@wrabbit
Eyyup. In fact, “we don’t know yet” is arguably the main driving force of science.
Of course anyone’s free to plug any and all holes in our scientific knowledge with [insert creator here] but those holes tend to get smaller as the knowledge accumulates…
@wrabbit
Questions about obscure, esoteric things is a good way to quickly stump pretty much anyone who doesn’t happen to be a specialist in that particular field, after all…
Also, call me crazy, but asking for scientific evidence (#16 (“What mechanism has science discovered that evidences…?”)) while rejecting a priori one of the most thoroughly researched, most widely-accepted, cornerstone facts of modern science seems just a tad inherently dishonest.
@bersl2
Actually, I’ve found that most creationists ask those questions not out of genuine curiosity, but out of an absurd attempt to “checkmate” non-creationists. They think that science can’t answer them, so they ask them as a sort of “gotcha” moment. It’s sad how few of them are actually looking for answers beyond “Goddidit”.
I object to your assessment. Some of them are actually good questions which merit response: #9 (about origin of single-celled organisms), #13 (about metamorphosis), and #16 (“What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?”).
Where we have strong emotions, we are likely to reach the wrong conclusions. I think you have concluded that everyone who holds an interest in creationist thinking is unwilling or unable to undergo a change of mind. If so, I believe this conclusion is in error. One does not ask questions of the sort in those examples if one is not looking for an honest answer.
@PaskaNaakka
So’s the Earth being round an oblate spheroid! (And, just to satisfy my raging need for pedantry, 1min=60sec isn’t a theory, but an arbitrary definition.)
