Talk:Arguments creationists should not use

I think the general public already knows that Geocentricity isn't a general creationist position. We have the pro-geocentricity + Geocentricity pages for that. Also, did you have to put it in the "arguments we think creationists should definately not use" section? Unless you can completely show it to be false. Also, I'm sure there are some other creationists on the creationwiki who would disagree with you putting that in that category.

--RichardT 23:35, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * Basking sharks are an evolutionist excuse for the unexplainable. Also the moon dust deal is a cover up. Example: As the earth travels through space around the sun, and the moon orbits the earth. They both travel through a lot of dust particles. Not only that, but the sun, earth, and moon attract dust because of gravity. Something the tests NASA did could not calculate into their results. Also, the sun produces solar wind which is plasma praticles which would constantly collect on the moons surface like dust particles. But yet not much of that is there either.&#91;http&#58;//creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 07:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

1.24 Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible There is no substantiation of his claims.

1.25 Many of Carl Baugh’s creation 'evidences' Not scientifically sound.

Neither of these are specific arguments.

The argument[s] should be specified and rebutted. Otherwise, we're really saying "Creationists to avoid."

If these arguments are not specified, 1.24 and 1.25 should be removed.

To maintain professionalism and to avoid bias, naming specific persons should follow the rebuttal/warning regarding a specific argument and be confined to wording such as "..., as advocated/promoted by Dr. Carl Baugh," or "..., as proposed by Ron Wyatt."

--Siriusknott 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I object to a good deal of this
First and foremost the Canopy Theory is Biblical and is vital to explaining how the Pre Flood world was different, why Dinosaurs survived then but not so well now and why people lived longer, and so on.

But also the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics did begin with the Fall, those silly argument otherwise assume those processes operated the same way, Philosophically speaking the 2nd of Thermodynamics is absolutely a Post Fall phenomenon, "There was no Death Before Adam sinned" is the Number reason I even am a Creationist.

The Mazzaroth is not something I use as Evidence for Creationism to a Non Believer, but I do believe there is something to it.--MithirandirOlorin 15:38, 22 June 2011 (PDT)