Some of the others are never wrong as well, but they'll end it at some point if only by sneaking off in a barrage of distractions and accusations. The aforenamed are never outlasted and never halfway plausible.
I have been debating this looniness for years. Nothing surprises me. What I have noticed is the ID people tend to try to disguise what their positions are. This allows them to maintain credibility a bit longer.
But after a short time the wheels come off the wagon.
For your amusement a biologist named Suttkus has a whole list of questions creationists can't answer. So, I answered them as if I were a creationist. (Note correct use of subjunctive);-)
The following is my grand list of unanswered
creationist questions. Some of them are specific to
one brand of creationism.
Fossils:
Why does the fossil record display sorting consistent
with evolution?
God is a practical joker (just like shubi). He put dinosaurs etc. in the strata
to fool scientists into thinking that evolution occurred and that the earth is old.
(Alternative: Explain why the fossil record is sorted
the way that it is, and don't even think about
proposing a "theory" that doesn't explain plants.)
A great flood covered the earth and all the plants and animals that fell
off Noah's ark sorted themselves into layers depending on their specific
gravity in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Why are there so few large gaps between the large
classification groups in the fossil record of
vertebrates?
There are no discovered missing links. Science can not show one piece
of evidence where anything turned into something else. Besides, how
could all this happen in just 6000 years. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahrrrgh
Why are there so few large gaps between the large
classification groups in the fossil record of shelled
mollusks and brachiopods?
Multitudinous fossilifications of carbonitical ossifores charleys crab.
(Alternative for the two above: Why are there no
signs of separately created types in the fossil
record?)
When Adam and Eve sinned the earth became a place of death. Before that
there was no death. Evolution contradicts the word of God. All scientists are Satan incarnate.
(Note: Mollusks, brachiopods and vertebrates have the
best fossil record because they have nice hard parts.
Some other groups (arthropods, sponges, etc.) also
have hard parts, but they are not as hard, nor are
they as easy to identify in pieces, so the record for
those can be expected to be less complete.)
Typical scientist hedging. They know how weak their proof is compared to the literal King James Version
which says that God created each kind individually.
Why did nearly every animal and plant on the planet go
to where it's fossil had been deposited by the flood?
Hydrologic carboniferous deposits challenge your assertion. Morris proved
years ago that the flood deposited all fossils less than 6000 years ago.
(To clarify, if the flood deposited all the fossils,
there should be no relationship between the
distribution of modern species and fossil ones, yet
there is.)
No worldly logic can disprove the word of God.
How did the flood result in distinct layers in the
fossil record?
Mount St. Helens did the same thing as the great flood just a few years ago.
The flood covered the entire planet, so why are
bearing layers so relatively rare on the planet?
Furthermore, why aren’t every single layer of the
fossil record available at place where fossils are
found? How do some places manage to skip layers if
they were laid down by a single flood event?
Who can understand God's mysteries. God's plan for us is unfathomable.
We stand on every jot and tittle of God's word. Halleujah, Amen.
How did the flood manage to preserve delicate
structures like dinosaur footprints between layers of
fossils?
See above answer. Halleujah!
*How did meteroites manage to hit solid ground above a
layer of fossils, and then get buried by another
layer of fossils, if all the fossils were put down in
a single event?
There is not evidence that meteorites have ever hit the earth. Scientists
know that the 2nd Law and Henry Morris conclusive proof that the earth
is 6000 years old and biologicalumphecrazifrazkmekkndk . Halelujah!
Age of the Earth and the Universe:
Why do so many different dating methods give the age
of the earth as much older than creationism allows?
(For example, counting ice and lake varves, tree ring
counting, radioactive dating of meteorites and
terrestrial rocks, etc.)
All dating methods are so highly innaccurate they are completely useless.
There is no evidence that satanic scientists can present that is accurate within 5,000,000 years and this is
especially true of Carbon 14 data which
has shown conclusively no correlation to a 6000 year old earth which the
Bible conclusively tells us is the age of the earth. So are we going to
believe the devil, this false teacher this treacherous adulterous leach or THE INNERRANT WORD OF GOD.
AMEN.
Why do so many different dating methods give the age
of the universe as much older than creationism allows?
(For example, the time it would take light from
distant galaxies to travel here, the recession of the
galaxies, measurement of background radiation, etc.)
Simple. God created everything in place as it is 6000 years ago and it remains the same today.
If the dating methods are producing bad answers, why
are they producing bad answers consistent with each
other?
Why did Jonah survive the belly of the whale? Why did Mesach whatits and whosits survive the firey
furnance? How did Daniel conquer the lion's den?
All glory in the highest. Amen.
Please explain how isocron dating produces an
inaccurate date.
Radiation is not linear isocronically and science is a mere dot in God's universe.
If radioactive decay rates have changed, then the
structure of stars (which depend on radioactivity
phenomena) would have to change, yet as we look across
the universe, we see no sign of this happening. Why?
(Note: Appearance of age is not a defense here, as
even if God created light in route, a star 1000 light
years away would be giving us real light now, and
should be displaying the properties consistent with
higher decay rates. They do not.)
Says you. Are we going to believe this devil or the dedicated creation scientists who are saving our children
from the evils of evolutionist thought control. Ha ha ha who can believe this riduculous tripe. Would you
believe
a simpleton geek like this?
If radioactive decay rates were higher in the past,
please explain how Adam and Eve were not fried by the
radiation in the Garden of Eden, as the rates required
to compress 4.5 billion years into 6000 would have
been tremendous. In fact, they would have produced
enough heat to melt the surface of the world. Why
don’t we see signs of this having happened?
They wore aluminum hats?
Ok enough already. Oy Vey.:-)
shubi